Ex Parte Brennan

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 25, 2005

09883883 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 25, 2005)

-1-
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication in a law journal
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte WILLIAM S. BRENNAN

Appeal No. 2005-0277
Application No. 09/883,883

ON BRIEF

Before KIMLIN, WARREN and TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.
KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-15.
Claims 16-36 were withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1 and 10
are illustrative:
1. A process for use in fabricating an integrated circuit,
comprising:
performing an operation on a wafer using a fabrication tool;
generating desorbed volatiles from the wafer after
performing the operation;
Appeal No. 2005-0277
Application No. 09/883,883
-2-
sampling the desorbed volatiles;
generating raw spectral data from the sampled desorbed
volatiles, the raw spectral data indicating the content
of the desorbed volatiles;
performing a spectroscopic analysis of the raw spectral
data; and
modifying an operational parameter of the fabrication tool
responsive to the result of the results of the
spectroscopic analysis.
10. A process for use in fabricating an integrated circuit,
comprising:
receiving raw spectral data representative of the content of
a plurality of volatiles desorbed from a wafer;
processing the raw spectral data to determine the presence
of a residual material on the wafer; and
controlling a process flow operation to reduce the amount of
the residual material on the wafer responsive to the
results of processing the raw spectral data.
In the rejection of the appealed claims, the examiner relies
upon the following references:
Lee et al. (Lee) 5,865,900 Feb. 2, 1999
Egermeier et al. US 2002/0006677 A1 Jan. 17, 2002
(Egermeier)
(U.S. Patent Application Publication)
Appellant's claimed invention is directed to a process that
finds utility in the fabrication of an integrated circuit. The
process entails generating volatiles from a wafer that has
undergone an operation using a fabrication tool, performing a
Appeal No. 2005-0277
Application No. 09/883,883
-3-
spectroscopic analysis of data generated from a sampling of the
volatiles, and either modifying an operational parameter of the
fabrication tool in response to the spectroscopic analysis
(claim 10), or controlling a process flow operation to reduce the
amount of residual material on the wafer in response to the
analysis (claim 10).
Appealed claims 1, 2 and 5-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Egermeier. Claims 3 and 4 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Egermeier in view of Lee.
Appellant submits at page 4 of the principal brief that
"[c]laims 1-9 rise and fall together and claims 10-15 rise and
fall together, but claims 1-9 rise and fall separately from
claims 10-15." Accordingly, claims 2-9 stand or fall together
with claim 1 and claims 11-15 stand or fall together with
claim 10.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellant and the examiner. In so doing, we are in
agreement with appellant that the examiner's § 102 rejection of
claims 1, 2 and 5-9, as well as the § 103 rejection of claims 3
Appeal No. 2005-0277
Application No. 09/883,883
-4-
and 4, are not well-founded. However, we concur with the
examiner that the subject matter of claims 10-15 is described by
Egermeier within the meaning of § 102.
We consider first the examiner's § 102 rejection of claims
1, 2 and 5-9 over Egermeier. In essence, we are in complete
agreement with appellant that the reference fails to describe the
claimed step of "modifying an operational parameter of the
fabrication tool responsive to the result of the results of the
spectroscopic analysis." We simply find no merit in the
examiner's rationale that the claimed step "is equivalent to FIG.
1 and the computer system and residual gas analyzer in the
Egermeier disclosure" (page 7 of Answer, second paragraph).
Although Egermeier performs the claimed spectroscopic analysis of
the volatiles generated from the wafer, the reference does not
use this analysis to modify any operational parameter of the
fabrication tool. Rather, as urged by appellant, Egermeier
expressly teaches that, based on the results of the analysis, the
wafer is either passed onto a subsequent operation or rejected
and returned for further cleaning. See Egermeier at page 3,
paragraph [0025], and page 4, paragraph [0036]. Furthermore,
even if, as stated by the examiner, the Egermeier disclosure is
Appeal No. 2005-0277
Application No. 09/883,883
-5-
"equivalent" to the claimed step, and we find no basis for such a
conclusion, an equivalence of a prior art step is not a
description of a claimed step within the meaning of § 102.
The examiner's citation of Lee in support of a § 103
rejection of claims 3 and 4 does not remedy the deficiency in
Egermeier discussed above.
The examiner's § 102 rejection of claims 10-15 is another
matter. Unlike claim 1 on appeal, claim 10 does not require the
modification of an operational parameter in response to the
spectroscopic analysis. Rather, claim 10 simply requires
"controlling a process flow operation to reduce the amount of the
residual material on the wafer responsive to the results of
processing the raw spectral data." In our view, the examiner has
properly concluded that Egermeier's return of the wafer to the
prior processing operation for removing residual layers meets the
claim requirement of controlling a process flow operation to
reduce the amount of residual material on the wafer. Appellant
submits that Egermeier "teaches no such 'controlling,' but is
instead directed to rejecting defective wafers, as is established
above" (page 6 of principal brief, second paragraph). However,
we are satisfied that Egermeier's rejection of defective wafers
Appeal No. 2005-0277
Application No. 09/883,883
-6-
and returning them to the prior process operation for removing
residual layers, in response to the analysis of volatiles, meets
the claim requirement of "controlling a process flow operation."
One final point remains. Upon return of this application to
the examiner, the examiner should consider the propriety of a
rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In particular,
the examiner should consider the obviousness of controlling and
modifying an operational parameter of the fabrication process,
such as temperature or concentration of cleaning medium, in
response to an analysis that current parameters result in an
ineffective cleaning of the wafer. For instance, it would seem
that modifying the time to a longer period would improve the
cleaning operation.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
§ 102 rejection of claims 1, 2 and 5-9 is reversed, as is the
examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 3 and 4. The examiner's
§ 102 rejection of claims 10-15 is affirmed. Accordingly,
the examiner's decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed-in-part.
Appeal No. 2005-0277
Application No. 09/883,883
-7-
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (effective Sep. 13, 2004; 69 Fed. Reg. 49960
(Aug. 12, 2004); 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (Sep. 7, 2004)).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
CHARLES F. WARREN ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
CATHERINE TIMM )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ECK:clm
Appeal No. 2005-0277
Application No. 09/883,883
-8-
Williams, Morgan & Amerson, P.C.
10333 Richmond, Suite 1100
Houston, TX 77042