Ex parte BRUGGE

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 9, 1998

08190622 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 9, 1998)

Application for patent filed February, 1, 1994.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is
not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 12
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte HUNTER B. BRUGGE
_____________
Appeal No. 96-1179
Application 08/190,6221
______________
ON Brief
_______________
Before KIMLIN, METZ and WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1,
2, 7 and 8. The examiner's final rejection of claims 3-6 and
9-11, the other claims remaining in the present application,
has been
Appeal No. 96-1179
Application 08/190,622
See page 3 of the Answer.2
2
withdrawn. Claims 3-6 and 9-11 have been indicated to be 2
allowable by the examiner. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A system for sputtering material on a substrate, said
system comprising:
a chamber for establishing and confining a
plasma;
a target holder for holding a target of material
to be sputtered within said chamber;
a wafer holder for holding a wafer on which said
material is to be sputtered, said wafer being
held within said chamber;
a collimator for blocking atoms moving
relatively obliquely toward said wafer and
permitting atoms moving relatively orthogonal to
said wafer to reach said wafer, said atoms being
of said material and being dislodged from said
target by said plasma; and
drive means for moving and removing said
collimator into and out of a position between
said target and said wafer;
whereby,
when said collimator is not between said target
and said wafer, atoms with relatively oblique
trajectories and atoms with relatively
orthogonal trajectories are deposited on said
wafer, and
when said collimator is between said target and
said wafer, a greater proportion of the atoms
Appeal No. 96-1179
Application 08/190,622
3
deposited on said wafer arrive with orthogonal
trajectories.
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Hanfmann 3,904,503 Sep. 09,
1975
Riley 3,939,052 Feb. 17,
1976
Ohji et al. (Ohji) 4,315,960 Feb.
16, 1982
Talieh et al. (Talieh) 5,171,412 Dec. 15,
1992
Appellant's claimed invention is directed to a system for
sputtering material on a substrate comprising a drive means
for moving and removing a collimator into and out of a
position between the target, which is the source of plasma
atoms, and the wafer onto which the sputtered atoms are
deposited. The system is used to effect a first, collimated
deposition step and a second, non-collimated deposition step.
Appellant's principal and reply briefs fail to set forth
an argument that can be reasonably considered to be specific
to any of the rejected claims 1, 2, 7 and 8. Accordingly, the
Appeal No. 96-1179
Application 08/190,622
4
appealed claims stand or fall together with claim 1. In re
Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir.
1987); Ex parte Schier, 21 USPQ2d 1016, 1018-19 (Bd. Pat. App.
& Int. 1991). See also 37 CFR 1.192 c(7) and c(8).
Appealed claims 1, 2, 7 and 8 stand rejected 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Talieh in view of either of
Hanfmann, Ohji or Riley.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellant's arguments
for patentability as they appear in the principal and reply
briefs. However, we concur with the examiner that the claimed
subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the
applied prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain the
examiner's rejection for essentially those reasons expressed
in the Answer.
Appellant states the following at page 12 of the
principal brief:
The major elements of Claim 1 are a chamber, a target
holder, a wafer holder, a collimator, and a drive means.
Appellant hereby stipulates that the first five elements,
Appeal No. 96-1179
Application 08/190,622
5
considered independently of the sixth, read on elements
disclosed or suggested by Talieh. It should be
understood however, that the recitation of the drive
means implies limitations that the chamber accommodate
the drive means and that the collimator be mobile.
Appellant further stipulates that the words in the
preamble (before "comprising") and in the "whereby"
clause are not words of limitation.
Appellant's stipulation regarding the first five elements
of claim 1, "considered independently of the sixth," is
confusing since appellant list only five major elements of
claim 1: (1) a chamber, (2) a target holder, (3) a wafer
holder, (4) a collimator, and (5) a drive means. However, in
view of the main
thrust of appellant's briefs and the examiner's rejection, we
understand appellant's stipulation to be a concession that
Talieh discloses the major elements of claim 1 with the
singular exception of a "drive means for moving and removing
said collimator into and out of a position between said target
and said wafer." We note that appellant also acknowledges
that the preambular language, as well as the "whereby" clause,
do not constitute claim limitations.
For purposes of this appeal the most relevant disclosure
Appeal No. 96-1179
Application 08/190,622
6
of Talieh appears at col. 3, lines 13-18, which reads as
follows:
The second step of the deposition process is
generally depicted in FIG. 3. This second
deposition step is preferably, although not
necessarily, conducted in a different chamber from
the first deposition step, and is conducted in a
similar manner to the prior art deposition
processes.
There is apparently no dispute that Talieh, like
appellant, teaches a first deposition step through a
collimator and a second, non-collimated deposition. Indeed,
appellant acknowledges at page 14 of the principal brief that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
Talieh teaches a preference "that the second step be
preformed without collimation." (lines 4 and 5). A central
issue on appeal is whether Talieh, in conjunction with the
secondary references,
would have suggested performing the second, non-collimated
deposition in the same chamber wherein the collimated
deposition takes place, thereby necessitating a movable
collimator. Although Talieh teaches a non-preferable
embodiment of performing the second deposition in the same
Appeal No. 96-1179
Application 08/190,622
7
chamber where the first, collimated deposition occurs, the
reference does not explicitly state whether or not such non-
preferred second deposition is collimated. Appellant urges
that Talieh teaches that if the same chamber is used for the
first and second deposition steps, the collimator is used for
both depositions.
While appellant's position is not without merit, it is
our judgement that based upon the collective teachings of the
applied prior art as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it prima facie obvious to perform both the
collimated and non-collimated depositions of Talieh in the
same chamber by providing a drive means for moving the
collimator before the second deposition. Appellant does not
deny that one of ordinary skill in the art would been
motivated to employ a first, collimated deposition followed by
a second, non-collimated deposition. This much is
acknowledged in the section of the present specification
entitled Background Of The Invention
(see, specifically, page 2, lines 27-31). Since Talieh
teaches that the second deposition may be conducted in the
same chamber as the first, collimated deposition, we agree
Appeal No. 96-1179
Application 08/190,622
8
with the examiner that it would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to move the collimator after the
first deposition to a location that does not influence the
sputtered atoms during the second deposition step. We also
agree with the examiner that it also would have been obvious
for one of ordinary skill in the art to employ drive means of
the type disclosed in the secondary references to effect
moving the collimator of Talieh after the first deposition
step. As acknowledged by appellant at page 12 of the
principal brief, the level of skill in this art is relatively
high, i.e., "[p]rocess engineers can have degrees ranging from
a bachelor's degree to doctoral degrees [and] process
technicians tend to have some technical background." In our
view, such highly skilled artisans would have found it obvious
to utilize drive means of the type disclosed by the secondary
references to render the collimator of Talieh movable and,
thereby, obtain the art-recognized benefit of a non-collimated
second deposition step. Appellant advances no objective
evidence or compelling reasoning which establishes that the
drive means of the secondary references are incapable of
effectively moving a collimator in a deposition chamber.
Appeal No. 96-1179
Application 08/190,622
9
Appellant simply offers that "[t]he mechanisms used by Riley
to move a mask and Hanfmann to move a shield probably would
not suffice to move a collimator" (page 5 of reply brief,
emphasis added). Also, we note that none of claims 1, 2, 7
and 8 defines any specific structure for the drive means.
As a final point, we note that appellant bases no
argument upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as
unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANDREW H. METZ ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
Appeal No. 96-1179
Application 08/190,622
10
THOMAS A. WALTZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
vsh
Appeal No. 96-1179
Application 08/190,622
11
VLSI Technology, Inc.
Legal Department, MS-45
1109 McKay Drive
San Jose, CA 95131