Ex Parte Dip

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2016

11833754 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111833,754 08/03/2007 Anthony Dip
37694 7590 09/21/2016
WOOD, HERRON & EV ANS, LLP (TOKYO ELECTRON)
2700 CAREW TOWER
441 VINE STREET
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
TPS-040 8441
EXAMINER
LUND, JEFFRIE ROBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
usptodock@whe-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTHONY DIP
Appeal2015-003551
Application 11/833,754
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1, 4--8, and 22-26. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Independent claim 1 reads (emphasis added to highlight disputed
limitation( s)):
1. A thermal processing system for processing
substrates, the thermal processing system comprising:
a tubular member defining a process chamber configured
to process the substrates and being substantially centered about
an azimuthal axis;
Appeal2015-003551
Application 11/833,754
a carrier disposed in the process chamber for holding the
substrates in a vertically spaced arrangement along the
azimuthal axis; and
a gas injector including a manifold body disposed in the
process chamber between the carrier and the tubular member,
the manifold body including a first conduit, a second conduit
inside the first conduit, and a third conduit inside the first
conduit, the first conduit including a lumen and a plurality of
injection outlets in the sidewall that couple the lumen in fluid
communication with the process chamber and are oriented
generally radially relative toward the azimuthal axis, the second
conduit including a sidewall, a lumen inside the sidewall, and a
plurality of passages distributed along the length of the second
conduit in the sidewall that couple the lumen in fluid
communication with the lumen of the first conduit, and the third
conduit including a sidewall, a lumen inside the sidewall, and a
plurality of passages distributed along the length of the third
conduit in the sidewall that couple the lumen in fluid
communication with the lumen of the first conduit,
wherein the lumen of the second conduit is configured to
receive a first process gas and the lumen of the third conduit is
configured to receive a second process gas that is segregated
from the first process gas while inside the lumen of the third
conduit, the lumen of the first conduit is configured to receive
the first process gas from the passages of the second conduit
and the second process gas from the passages of the third
conduit, and the first conduit is configured to combine the first
and second process gases to promote a chemical reaction that
produces a reaction product for injection through the injection
outlets into the process chamber,
wherein the injection outlets are substantially aligned in a
row, and the plurality of passages in the sidewall of the second
conduit and the plurality of passages in the sidewall of the third
conduit are each substantially aligned in respective first and
second rows that are oriented substantially parallel with the row
of the injection outlets, and
2
Appeal2015-003551
Application 11/833,754
wherein the second conduit has a cap at one end thereof
and the third conduit has a cap at one end thereof, the caps
sealing the ends of the respective conduits.
The Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a):
(a) claims 1, 4, and 22-26 as unpatentable over Kontani et al. (US
2004/0025786 Al, published February 12, 2004) ("Kontani") and Dozier
(US 4,108,106, issued August 22, 1978);
(b) claim 5 as unpatentable over Kontani, Dozier, and Sato et al. (US
2003/0224618 Al, published December 4, 2003) ("Sato"); and
( c) claims 6-8 as unpatentable over Kontani, Dozier, and Yamaguchi
et al. (JP 2006-080098 A, published March 23, 2006, and relying on an
English Machine Translation dated April 14, 2016) ("Yamaguchi").
For Rejection (a), Appellant presents arguments for claim 1 only. See
Appeal Brief, generally. Moreover, with respect to Rejection (b ), Appellant
did not substantively address or further distinguish the additional cited
secondary references based on the additional limitations of the dependent
claim 5. Id. at 13. Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as
representative of the claimed subject matter for these rejections before us on
appeal. Claims 4, 5, and 22-26 stand or fall with claim 1. The rejection of
claims 6-8 (Rejection (c)), separately argued, will be addressed separately.
Id.
3
Appeal2015-003551
Application 11/833,754
ANALYSIS
The Prior Art Rejections
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellant's contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this
record supports the Examiner's conclusion that the subject matter of
Appellant's claims is unpatentable over the applied prior art for the reasons
presented by the Examiner. We add the following for emphasis.
Rejections (a) and (b)
Independent Claim 1 is directed to a thermal processing system for
processing substrates where the gases used to form an oxide layer on
substrates are first combined to promote a chemical reaction of the gases
within a first lumen to produce a reaction product that is then subsequently
injected through the injection outlets into the process chamber where the
substrates are placed. Spec. i-f 8.
We refer to the Examiner's Non-Final Action for a statement of the
rejection of representative claim 1. Non-Final Act. 2--4.
Appellant argues Kontani fails to disclose the manifold body having
the three conduits as is recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6; Kontani Figure 1.
Appellant further argues Dozier's injector tubes 432--434 are different from
Kontani's injector tube 2 because each tube is imperforate and open at one
end while the claimed invention requires the injector tubes have a plurality
of passages distributed along the length thereof and being end-capped as
claimed. App. Br. 7; Dozier Figure 11. According to Appellant, absent
impermissible hindsight, there is no reason why a person of ordinary skill
would cap an injector tube of Dozier and why a person of ordinary skill
would perforate a tube of Dozier for placement in the buffer chamber 17 of
4
Appeal2015-003551
Application 11/833,754
Kontani given the different structural configurations of the cited art. App.
Br. 8-10, 12. Thus, Appellant argues the combination of Kontani and
Dozier fails to disclose each of the conduits recited in claim 1. Id. at 6.
We are unpersuaded by this argument. Appellant's arguments are
premised on bodily incorporation and are not focused on the Examiner's
reasons for combining the cited art. It is well established that the
obviousness inquiry does not ask "whether the references could be
physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered
obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole." In re Etter, 756 F.2d
852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en bane); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981) (stating "[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features
of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference").
Both Kontani and Dozier are directed to providing uniform gas flow
onto a substrate surface through the use of injector tubes for depositing a
uniform film on the substrate surface. Kontani i127; Dozier col. 2, 11. 23-33.
As noted by the Examiner, Kontani discloses a device that accomplishes this
purpose where an injector tube 2 having perforations 4 along the length of
the tube is inserted into a chamber 1 7 also having perforations 3 along the
length of a wall. Non-Final Act. 2-3; Kontani Figure 1, i-f 110. Kontani
discloses chamber 17 moderates the velocity of gas ejecting from injector
tube 2 so that the velocity of the gas ejecting from the perforations 3 of
chamber 17 have uniform flow rate and flow velocity. Kontani i-fi-1 122-123.
While Kontani discloses the use of multiple chambers for multiple injector
tubes, the Examiner recognized that Kontani does not disclose providing
multiple injector tubes within one chamber. Non-Final Act. 3; Ans. 11-12;
Kontani i-fi-1 34--43. The Examiner turns to Dozier for the teaching that it is
5
Appeal2015-003551
Application 11/833,754
well known in the art of semiconductor material processing to combine a
plurality of injector tubes 432--436 within a single manifold tube 480 to mix
gases prior to supplying them through perforations 494 for deposition on a
wafer substrate. Non-Final Act. 3; Ans. 12; Dozier Figure 11; col. 7, 11. 42-
58. Thus, the Examiner has established a reasonable basis to conclude that
the claimed invention would have been obvious over the prior art cited.
Non-Final Act. 4; Ans. 12. That is, the Examiner determined that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the known technique of
Dozier of using multiple injectors in a single manifold to mix reactive gases
prior to injection of gases to a processing chamber containing semiconductor
wafers for deposition with the reasonable expectation of successfully
uniformly depositing material on the surfaces of the wafers. On this record,
Appellant has not adequately explained why one skilled in the art would not
have been capable of adapting the device of Kontani to include multiple gas
injector tubes in the same chamber, as disclosed by Dozier. Appellant has
not pointed to reversible error in the Examiner's obviousness determination.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's prior art rejections of claims
1, 4, 5, and 22-26 (Rejections (a) and (b)) for the reasons presented by the
Examiner and given above.
Rejection (c)
Appellant argues claims 6-8 together. App. Br. 13. Accordingly, we
limit our discussion to claim 6 and claims 7 and 8 stand or fall with claim 6.
Claim 6 requires the thermal processing system of claim 1 to further
comprise an outer vessel enclosing the tubular member where both are
separated by an annular pumping space. Claim 6 additionally requires a
6
Appeal2015-003551
Application 11/833,754
longitudinal slit extending through the tubular member to couple the process
chamber and the annular pumping space in fluid communication.
We refer to the Examiner's Non-Final Action for a statement of the
rejection. Non-Final Act. 6-8.
Appellant argues the Examiner has not explained how Kontani would
have been optimized to incorporate the outer vessel/annular slit arrangement
of Yamaguchi. App. Br. 13.
We find this argument unavailing. Appellant's argument again is
again premised on bodily incorporation. Etter, 756 F.2d at 859; Keller, 642
F.2d at 425.
As noted by the Examiner, Kontani discloses an exhaust outlet 18 for
exhausting gas in the reaction tube 6 to the outside. Ans. 21; Kontani
Figures 1, 2B, i-fi-f 119, 126, 144, 151. The Examiner found Kontani does not
disclose providing a longitudinal slit extending through the tubular member
to couple a process chamber and an annular pumping space in fluid
communication to exhaust the process chamber. Non-Final Act. 7; Ans. 21.
To address this deficiency, the Examiner relies on Yamaguchi as teaching
the claimed outer vessel/slit/annular pumping space arrangement as a known
technique to exhaust gases from a process chamber used for the treatment of
semiconductor wafers. Non-Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 21; Yamaguchi Figures 1,
3, i-fi-f l, 10-11, 15. Thus, the Examiner provided a reasonable basis to
conclude that the subject matter of claim 6 would have been obvious over
the cited art. Non-Final Act. 8; Ans. 21-22. Appellant has not adequately
explained why one skilled in the art would not have been capable of
adapting the device of Kontani by replacing Kontani' s exhaust arrangement
with Yamaguchi' s known alternative exhaust arrangement for
semiconductor wafer processing system.
7
Appeal2015-003551
Application 11/833,754
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's prior art rejection of claims 6-
8 (Rejection (c)) for the reasons presented by the Examiner and given above.
ORDER
The Examiner's prior art rejections of claims 1, 4-8, and 22-26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
8