11809644 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2014)

Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 27, 2014

11809644 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JUAN-LIN CHEN, YUNG-FU YEH, YUK-TONG LEE, and NAI-HAN CHENG ____________ Appeal 2012-004646 Application 11/809,6441 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before PETER F. KRATZ, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges. Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge FRANKLIN. Opinion Concurring filed by Administrative Patent Judge NAGUMO. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1–28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is set forth below: 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company. (App. Br. 2). Appeal 2012-004646 Application 11/809,644 2 1. An apparatus for monitoring beam currents of an implanter, the apparatus comprising: a beam-sensing unit for sensing the beam currents, the beam-sensing unit being positioned on an opposing side of a wafer position from a beam source; a position-determining unit for determining scan positions; and a computing unit for: receiving the beam currents from the beam-sensing unit; receiving the scan positions from the position-determining unit; and determining a drift status of the implanter from the beam currents, wherein the computing unit is configured to receive the beam currents and the scan positions periodically between a starting time and an ending time of a scan process of the implanter. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Wagner et al. US 6,965,116 B1 Nov. 15, 2005 Cucchetti et al. US 7,547,460 B2 June 16, 2009 THE REJECTION Claims 1–28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Cucchetti in view of Wagner. ANALYSIS We REVERSE the above rejection because the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness substantially for the reasons expressed by Appellants. We add the following for emphasis. Appellants argue that the modification of Cucchetti as proposed by the Examiner would render Cucchetti unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, and thus a prima facie case has not been met. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 14–16 and Reply Br. 4–9. Appellants explain that Cucchetti teaches a stationary Appeal 2012-004646 Application 11/809,644 3 wafer and a scanning ion beam2 and Wagner teaches a stationary ion beam and a movable wafer.3 Reply Br. 7. Appellants explain that the purpose of Cucchetti is to measure the beam uniformity across a surface of the wafer as the beam is scanned across the surface of the wafer by the scan plates to create a scan waveform. Reply Br. 5–7. Cucchetti, e.g., col. 2, ll. 3–5 and col. 6, ll. 46–59. Appellants also explain that Cucchetti determines a waveform that specifies the scan rate at each location on the surface of the wafer. Br. 14–15. Reply Br. 5–7. Appellants submit that thus the modification of Cucchetti as proposed by the Examiner would frustrate the objective of Cucchetti of determining a scan waveform according to Cucchetti because the technique used in Wagner does not concern creation of such a scan waveform according to Cucchetti, and the Examiner does not adequately explain how incorporation of Wagner’s technique would do so.4 Reply Br. 6–7. Notably, the Examiner does not convincingly address the above point made by Appellants in the statement of the rejection (Ans. 3–19) or in the response to argument (Ans. 19–20). Hence, the record favors Appellants’ position. We add that “[i]f [the] proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification.” In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 905 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Also, “[i]f the proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change 2 See Figure 1 of Cucchetti with wafer 34 on platen 36, and Faraday beam profiler 90. 3 See Figure 1 of Wagner with scan wheel 14 and substrates 11 and Faraday collector 30. 4 See Answer generally. Appeal 2012-004646 Application 11/809,644 4 the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious.” In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 815 (CCPA 1959). In the instant case, Appellants have provided a reasonable basis in making their point on this issue for the reasons provided in the record, while the Examiner has not convinced us otherwise. For example, while the Examiner states that the proposed modification is merely a substitution of one known element for another (Ans. 20), the Examiner does not explain how the creation of a scan waveform according to Cucchetti would have been obtained by using the technique of Wagner (e.g., no reasonable expectation of success in achieving the creation of a scan waveform according to Cucchetti has been established). We are thus persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that a prima facie case has not been presented by the Examiner, and our determination applies to each of independent claim 1, 8, 14, and 19 because the Examiner has not established that the teachings of Cucchetti in view of Wagner are sufficient to render the subject matter of these claims prima facie obvious for the reasons stated above. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The decision of the Examiner is reversed. REVERSED cdc UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JUAN-LIN CHEN, YUNG-FU YEH, YUK-TONG LEE, and NAI-HAN CHENG ____________ Appeal 2012-004646 Application 11/809,644 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before PETER F. KRATZ, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges. NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring. I concur in the judgment because, in my view, the Examiner has not dealt adequately with critical differences between the references. Cucchetti describes an ion implanter having an actively scanned ion beam, the intensity of which is monitored as a function of position by a Faraday beam profiler that is translated in the plane of the wafer to be implanted. Wagner, in contrast, describes an ion implanter in which the wafers are translated through a stationary ion beam, and the beam intensity is monitored by a detector mounted behind the wafers. The Examiner has failed to come forward with credible evidence that the routineer would have been motivated to change the position of the beam profiler from in front of the substrate, as in Cucchetti, to behind the substrate, as in Wagner. The Examiner has also failed to show that moving both the beam and the detector, while keeping Appeal 2012-004646 Application 11/809,644 2 the substrate immobile, would have been regarded as a technical equivalent of using a beam and a detector that are not moved, and a substrate that is moved. Nor has the Examiner shown that the objectives of Cucchetti, to correct nonuniformities in the ion beam intensity as the beam is scanned across the substrate, would, more likely than not, have been achieved, without undue experimentation, with the proposed altered apparatus.