Ex Parte Bjorkman

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 17, 2006

10269129 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 17, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CLAES H. BJORKMAN
____________

Appeal 2006-3419
Application 10/269,129
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: November 17, 2006
____________

Before KIMLIN, GARRIS, and WARREN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal involving claims 1-9 and 15-42. Claims 10-14 have
been withdrawn from consideration pursuant to a restriction requirement.
Claims 1 and 29 are illustrative:
1. A magnetic field-enhanced plasma reactor, comprising:
a reaction chamber adapted to apply a plasma to a substrate; and
a first and second set of primary electromagnets having inner and
outer perimeters disposed about said reaction chamber, said first set of
Appeal 2006-3419
Application 10/269,129

2
primary electromagnets being provided with a first adjustable current and
said second set of primary electromagnets being provided with a second
adjustable current; and

a secondary electromagnet nested within the inner perimeter of
one of said primary electromagnets;

wherein the reactor is adapted to maintain the ratio R = I2/I1 during
etching within the range -1 < R< 1, wherein I1 is the current provided by the
first current source, wherein I2 is the current provided by the second current
source, and wherein I1 > I2.

29. A magnetic field-enhanced plasma reactor, comprising:

a reactor chamber for applying a plasma to a substrate, said reaction
chamber comprising a reaction region;

a first plurality of electromagnets disposed about said reaction
region;
a second plurality of electromagnets, each of which is disposed in
the vicinity of at least one corner of a first region defined by the right
rectangular prism of smallest perimeter which encompasses the first plurality
of electromagnets; and

at least one current modulator adapted to modulate the current
applied to said first and second plurality of electromagnets such that an
adjustable magnetic field is created in the vicinity of at least one corner of
the first region.

In the rejection of the appealed claims, the Examiner relies upon the
following references:
Cheng US 4,842,683 Jun. 27, 1989
Sato US 4,963,242 Oct. 16, 1990
Pu US 5,674,321 Oct. 7, 1997
Shan US 6,113,731 Sep. 5, 2000
Horioka US 2003/0006008 A1 Jan. 9, 2003
Horioka US 2003/0085000 A1 May 8, 2003

Appeal 2006-3419
Application 10/269,129

3
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a magnetic field-
enhanced plasma reactor having first and second sets of primary
electromagnets and a secondary electromagnet nested within the inner
perimeter of one of the primary electromagnets.
Appealed claims 29-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Sato. Also, the appealed claims stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
(a) claims 1-9 and 15-42 over Shan in view of Sato;
(b) claims 1-9 and 15-42 over Pu in view of Sato;
(c) claims 1-9 and 15-42 over Cheng in view of Sato, and
(d) claims 1-3 over Sato.
In addition, claims 1-9 and 15-38 stand provisionally rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over the
claims of US Application Nos. 10/146,443 and 10/205,8701
We consider first the Examiner’s Section 102 rejection of claims 29-
37 over Sato. We agree with the Examiner that Sato, like Appellant,
describes a magnetic field-enhanced plasma reactor comprising a reaction
chamber and a first plurality of electromagnets disposed about the reaction
chamber, as well as a second plurality of electromagnets nested within the
inner perimeter of the first plurality of electromagnets. It is Appellant’s
contention that secondary magnets 30 and 32 of Sato “are not arranged so
that they are disposed in the vicinity of at least one corner of a first region
defined by a right rectangular prism of smallest perimeter which

1 Appellant has not contested the double patenting rejections but respectfully
requests that “the provisional rejections for double patenting over the claims
of two co-pending applications continue to be held in the abeyance, as
discussed in response to the Office action” (Br. 13 last ¶).
Appeal 2006-3419
Application 10/269,129

4
encompasses the primary magnets (e.g., magnets 31 and 33)” (Br. 8, 3rd ¶).
However, while the arrangement of Sato’s electromagnets does not
correspond to the arrangement of the elctromagnets depicted in Appellant’s
Specification drawings, we fully concur with the Examiner that the claim
language “in the vicinity” is sufficiently broad to embrace Sato’s
arrangement of electromagnets. Contrary to the implication of Appellant’s
arguments, limitations in the specification, including the drawings, are not to
be read into the claims. See In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5
(Fed. Cir. 1985).
We now consider the rejection of all the appealed claims over Shan,
or Pu, or Chng in view of Sato. With the exception of claims 29-37, the
claims require a secondary electromagnetic in a nested relation with respect
to the primary electromagnets. As recognized by the Examiner, neither
Shan, Pu, nor Cheng discloses such a nested relationship between the first
and second electromagnets. While the Examiner relies upon Sato for the
nested relationship of the electromagnets, the Examiner has not responded to
the particular arguments made by Appellant concerning modifying Shan, Pu,
or Cheng in accordance with the electromagnets of Sato. For instance,
Appellant points out that the first and second primary electromagnets of Sato
do not have an orientation that is not orthogonal to the surface of the
cathode, and discloses electromagnets that are disposed above and below the
chamber. On the other hand, Shan, Pu, and Cheng all disclose
electromagnets arranged around the sides of the cylindrical chamber. We
agree with the Appellant that the Examiner has not explained why and how
one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the electromagnets of
Shan, Pu, and Cheng, which are disposed around the sides of the chamber, in
Appeal 2006-3419
Application 10/269,129

5
accordance with the nested relationship of electromagnets of Sato that are
disposed above and below the chamber. The Examiner has not articulated
the requisite reasonable expectation of success in modifying the
electromagnet arrangements of the primary references in accordance with
the disclosure of Sato. The Examiner’s recitation of legal principles that it is
not necessary to bodily incorporate the structure of one reference into the
structure of another reference, and that obviousness is in a sense necessarily
based upon hindsight reasoning, is not a substitute for the required fact-
based analysis of the prior art which results in a reasonable expectation of
success. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s Section 103
rejections of claims 1-9, 15-28, and 38-42. We note, however, that
Appellant’s arguments based upon the recited ratio of the first and second
current sources is non-persuasive since such recitation imparts no structure
to the claimed reactor, and Appellant has not demonstrated that the
apparatus of the cited references are not capable of controlling the current
accordingly.
Finally, we will sustain the Examiner’s Section 103 rejection of
claims 1-3 over Sato. As acknowledged by Appellant, Sato discloses a
secondary electromagnet nested within the inner perimeter of one of the
primary electromagnets. As for the claimed ratio of the current provided by
the first current source to the current provided by the second current source,
the fact that Sato discloses that the current in the electromagnets can be
controlled establishes that the reactor of Sato is capable of maintaining a
ratio R within the claimed range. As correctly pointed out by the Examiner,
claims 1-3 are apparatus claims, and Appellant has not explained how
apparatus within the scope of claims 1-3 are structurally distinct from the
Appeal 2006-3419
Application 10/269,129

6
apparatus disclosed by Sato. See In Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959-60, 177
USPQ 705, 706-07 (CCPA 1973).
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 29-37 under Section 102 and claims 1-3 under Section 103 over Sato
are affirmed, while the Examiner’s rejections under Section 103 of claims 1-
9, 15-28, and 38-42 over Shan, or Pu, or Cheng in view of Sato are reversed.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2004).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

hh

Patent Counsel, MS/2061
Legal Affairs Department
Applied Materials, Inc.
P.O. Box 450A
Santa Clara, CA 95052