Ex Parte Doh et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 10, 2008

10882474 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 10, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HYUN-HO DOH
And BRIAN K. MCMILLIN
____________

Appeal 2008-1603
Application 10/882,474
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: March 10, 2008
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, THOMAS A. WALTZ, and LINDA M.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-24 and 49. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
Appellants claim a method of determining a process threshold such as
an end point in a plasma processing system. The method includes collecting
Appeal 2008-1603
Application 10/882,474

a first set of data during a substantially steady state portion of a plasma
process, the first set of data excluding data associated with the process start
portion and the process end portion, and using this first set of data to create a
first statistical model which is ultimately compared to a second statistical
model created using a second set of data (claim 1).
Representative claim 1 reads as follows:
1. In a plasma processing system, a method of determining a process
threshold comprising:

exposing a substrate to a plasma process, including a process start
portion, a substantially steady state portion, and process end portion;

collecting a first set of data during said substantially steady state
portion, said first set of data excluding data associated with said process start
portion and said process end portion;

creating, using said first set of data, a first statistical model
comprising at least a statistical model component selected from the group
consisting of a variance component and a residual component; and

collecting a second set of data;

creating, using said second set of data, a second statistical model
comprising said statistical model component, wherein if said statistical
model component of said first statistical model is substantially different than
said statistical model component of said second statistical model, said
process threshold is determined to have been substantially achieved.

The references set forth below are relied upon by the Examiner as
evidence of obviousness:
Angell 5,658,423 Aug. 19, 1997
Toprac 6,582,618 B1 Jun. 24, 2003

2
Appeal 2008-1603
Application 10/882,474

All appealed claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Toprac in view of Angell.
Appellants do not separately argue any of the rejected claims (Br. 3-4,
8-10). Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 to represent the rejected
claims whereby all claims will stand or fall with claim 1.
For the reasons expressed in the Answer and below, we will sustain
the above-noted rejection.
Appellants do not contest the Examiner's proposed combination of
Toprac and Angell. Instead, the Appellants' sole argument is that "Toprac
and Angell teach collecting data during a plasma etch process that includes a
process start portion, a substantially steady state portion, and a process end
portion" whereas, in the method of claim 1, "a first (initial) set of data is
collected only during the substantially steady state portion, but neither [sic,
not during] the process start portion nor the process end portion" (Br. 9).
However, this argument fails to address the Examiner's fact finding and
obviousness conclusion regarding the claim feature under consideration.
In this regard, the Examiner finds that, when data is collected and
stored in a computer system for comparison purposes, it can be analyzed in
sections as desired by the end-user (Ans. 3, 6). Based on this finding, the
Examiner concludes that "[s]plitting data samples into a few sections when
conducting data and statistical analysis is simply [a] choice[] of design data
analysis and is obvious to one skilled in the art" (Ans. 6). We understand
the Examiner's position to be that it would have been obvious for an artisan
to collect and store Toprac's data (i.e., the data to be archived for creating a
comparative statistical model which corresponds to the claim 1 "first set of
3
Appeal 2008-1603
Application 10/882,474

data") from the steady state portion only of the plasma process as required
by claim 1.
Moreover, this position is supported by Toprac's teaching that, "[i]f
the engineer and/or controller knows that only a portion of the OES data
contains useful information, PCA may be applied only to that portion"
(col. 6, ll. 11-13). This teaching supports the Examiner's position by
inferring that the choice of data samples to be collected, stored and analyzed
would have been within the capabilities of one skilled in this art. KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007) (obviousness analysis can
take account of inferences and creative steps person of ordinary skill in the
art would employ).
Most importantly, Appellants in their Brief have not contested the
Examiner's above-discussed finding and conclusion regarding the claim 1
feature under review. Because they are unchallenged on the record of this
appeal, we consider the Examiner's finding and conclusion to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the claim 1 method and
specifically the step of "collecting a first set of data during said substantially
steady state portion, said first set of data excluding data associated with said
process start portion and said process end portion." With respect to this step,
Appellants have failed to address and therefore have failed to show error in
the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness.
For the reasons discussed above and in the Answer, we sustain the
Examiner's § 103 rejection of all appealed claims as being unpatentable over
Toprac in view of Angell.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
4
Appeal 2008-1603
Application 10/882,474

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

cam

IPSG, P.C.
P. O. BOX 700640
SAN JOSE, CA 95170

5