Ex Parte Engesser

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 15, 2011

11584652 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 15, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte PHILIPP ENGESSER
________________

Appeal 2010-004422
Application 11/584,652
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, PETER F. KRATZ, and
MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2010-004422
Application 11/584,652

2
A. Introduction2, 3
Philipp Engesser (“Engesser”) timely appeals under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection4 of claims 1-5 and 7-11, which
are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We REVERSE.
The subject matter on appeal relates to an apparatus that treats with a
liquid a defined section of the surface of a semiconductor wafer, especially a
peripheral ring on one surface of the wafer. Prior art apparatuses are said to
provide relatively poorly defined regions of treatment. (Spec. 3-4.) The
claimed apparatus provides a mask that is held a short distance from the area
of the wafer to be treated, and introduces a first liquid between the mask and
the wafer, where it is held by capillary force. The distance between the
mask and the wafer may be increased so the liquid is no longer held by
capillary force and can be removed easily. Moreover, a “liquid line” is
pointed at the surface of the wafer that faces the mask. Liquid from this line
can be used to rinse or further treat the masked area or to treat areas not
treated with the first liquid by a second liquid. (Spec. 14, 1st full para.)

2 Application 11/584,652, Device for Liquid Treatment of Wafer Shaped
Articles, filed 23 October 2006, as a division of application 09/984,707,
filed 31 October 2001, now US Patent 7,172,674. The benefit of an EP
application filed 31 October 2000 is also claimed. The specification is
referred to as the “652 Specification,” and is cited as “Spec.” The real party
in interest is listed as SEZ AG (Austria) (Appeal Brief, filed 5 August 2008
(“Br.”), 1.)
3 Heard 10 March 2011. The Official Transcript, which was not available
when this Opinion was entered, will be made of record.
4 Office action mailed 5 January 2009 (“Final Rejection”; cited as “FR”).
Appeal 2010-004422
Application 11/584,652

3
Representative Claim 1 reads:
1. Device for liquid treatment of a defined section of a
wafer-shaped article (W), especially of a wafer, comprising:
holding means for holding the wafer-shaped article;
a mask which in shape and size corresponds to the area of
the defined section which is to be treated with liquid,
wherein the mask and holding means are
stationary relative to one another with respect to
rotation around an axis (A) which is perpendicular
to the mask;
spacer means which keep the mask and the wafer-shaped
article at a defined short distance to one another such that
liquid can be retained between the mask and the defined
area of the wafer-shaped article by capillary forces; and
a liquid line which is pointed at the surface of the wafer-
shaped article facing the mask,
wherein the elements of the spacer means are at the same
time elements of a distance changing means which can
increase a distance between the mask and the wafer-
shaped article such that the retained liquid is not longer
held by capillary forces.
(Claims App., Br. 9; indentation, paragraphing, and emphasis added)
The Examiner has maintained the following grounds of rejection:5
A. Claims 1-4, 7, 10, and 11 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in view of Tanaka.6
B. Claims 1-5 and 7-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) in
view of Langen.7

5 Examiner’s Answer mailed 29 October 2009 (“Ans.”).
6 Hideya Tanaka et al., Apparatus for Developing a Resist-Coated
Substrate, U.S. Patent 5,689,749 (1997).
Appeal 2010-004422
Application 11/584,652

4
B. Discussion
Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record.
Engesser argues (Br. 5) that the Examiner erred in finding that Tanaka
describes an anticipating apparatus because spinning chuck 21,8 which the
Examiner identifies as the holding means (Ans. 3), is not stationary relative
to liquid seal ring 24, which the Examiner identifies as the mask (id.). The
Examiner responds that mask 24 is connected to inner container 26 of cup 20
by bolts, and that “the mask is stationary while the chuck rotates.” (Ans. 8.)
As Engesser points out (Reply 2), this proves the error in the rejection
because claim 1 requires that the mask and the holding means are stationary
relative to one another. We REVERSE the rejection in view of Tanaka.
Engesser argues that Langen fails to anticipate the claimed apparatus
because Langen fails to disclose, in the abstract or “elsewhere in the
document,” a distance changing means and a liquid line that is pointed at the
surface of the wafer shaped article facing the mask. (Br. 7.)
Examiner argues that Langen describes a device for liquid treatment
of a wafer in which spacer means 21 keeps the mask and the wafer-shaped
article at a defined short distance to one another. (Ans. 5, last para.) The
Examiner also identifies “the gas cushion” as the spacer means and the

7 Kurt Langen, Device and Process for Liquid Treatment of Wafer-Shaped
Articles, U.S. Patent 6,435,200 B1 (20 August 2002), based on an
application filed 24 April 2000. Langen is assigned to SEZ AG.
8 For clarity, element labels are presented in bold font regardless of their
presentation in the original document.
Appeal 2010-004422
Application 11/584,652

5
distance changing means recited in claim 1. (Id. at sentence bridging 5-6,
citing the abstract and [non-existent] Fig. 5.)
According to Engesser (Reply 2-3), the Examiner relied on the gas
cushion for the first time in the Answer. Engesser argues that the absence of
“any mention of configuring or controlling its gas flow to maintain the
wafer W at any elevation other than the single spacing shown in the figures
of that patent” establishes the failure of Langen to anticipate the appealed
claims (Id. at 3, 1st full para.)
The 652 Specification defines the several “means” recited in claim 1
as structures in several distinct embodiments of the invention.
Figure 5, which illustrates the most relevant features, is shown infra:

{Specification Figure 5 shows a liquid treatment apparatus}
Carrier 11 has a base body 4 and a ring 2 which is held above base body 4
by spacers 41 (Spec. 20, last para.), thus forming gap 15 with wafer W.
Ring 2 has cylindrical pins 53 that can be adjusted radially to surround the
wafer W. (Id.) Liquid introduced into gap 15 is held between wafer W and
ring 2 by capillary forces. Thus ring 2 corresponds to the mask recited in
claim 1. Gas channels 44 and 45 are machined into base body 4 and are
provided with nozzles 46 and 49 that are pointed obliquely towards the
Appeal 2010-004422
Application 11/584,652

6
surface of the wafer W. (Id. at 20, last line, through 21, l. 6.) According to
the 652 Specification, with only first gas flow G1 turned on, wafer W is
only slightly lifted, whereas when both gas flows G1 and G2 are turned on,
the wafer is lifted somewhat more, as shown by the dotted line. (Id., para.
bridging 21-22.) The additional lifting is said to be enough that liquid
between the wafer and mask 2 is no longer held by capillary forces. (Id.
at 22, ll. 10-12.) The liquid can then be blown away by the gas flow or also
by spinning the carrier. Note that the mask 2 and the holding means are
stationary relative to one another when body 4 is rotated about an axis
perpendicular to mask 2. Liquid line 28 provides a flushing fluid to the
surface of the wafer that faces carrier 11 (id. at ll. 17-19), and thus mask 2.
Langen describes an apparatus for the liquid treatment of wafers, an
embodiment of which is illustrated in Figure 1, reproduced below:
Langen Figure 1

{Langen Figure 1 shows a liquid treatment apparatus}
The wafer W is held to chuck 1 by the Bernoulli effect (Langen col. 2,
ll. 17-20) (i.e., by the negative pressure, relative to the atmosphere) caused
by gas G flowing past the bottom of the wafer at 7 through annular gas
channel 5 and annular nozzle 6 that are formed between base body 3 and
Appeal 2010-004422
Application 11/584,652

7
cover 2 (id. at col. 4, ll. 20-32). Gas guide device 4 is a ring attached to
body 3 by a plurality of spacers 21, which help form annular gas discharge
channel 8 between gas guide 4 and body 3. (Id. at ll. 57-59.) Ring 4 bears
pins 25 which confine wafer W to the top of the holder. (Id. at ll. 34-38.)
The entire assembly can be rotated about axis A, which is perpendicular to
ring 4, which functions as the mask.
Langen describes the operation of the apparatus by reference to
Figure 3, which is shown below.

{Langen Figure 3 shows the liquid treatment apparatus in use}
In Langen’s words,
[d]uring liquid treatment the liquid is applied to the surface
facing [sic: away from] the chuck 1, the liquid then flows in
the direction of the wafer edge (liquid flow F) and around the
wafer edge E. . . . Then the liquid flow is divided into two
flows F1 and F2. The liquid flow F1 flows away from the
wafer. The liquid flow F2 flows into the gap 10 and thus
wets the bottom of the wafer. F2 wets the edge area of this
surface . . . the wetted area d is somewhat larger than the
depth of the gap c Here the liquid flow F2 is deflected by the
gas flow G2 around the inner edge of the gas guide device
Appeal 2010-004422
Application 11/584,652

8
and the liquid flow F2 and the gas flow G2 leave the chuck
jointly via the gas discharge channel [8].
(Langen col. 5, ll. 15-30.)
As Engesser argues, the Examiner does not point out—and Langen
does not describe—a “liquid line which is pointed at the surface of the
wafer-shaped article facing the mask” as required by claim 1 (emphasis
added). The Examiner’s mere assertion that Langen discloses this feature
(FR 6, ll. 4-5), which was repeated, unaltered (Ans. 3, last line, to Ans. 4,
first line) after Engesser’s challenge (Br. 7), and the Examiner’s failure to
respond (Ans. 8, “Response to Arguments”) suffice as grounds for reversal.
Similarly, the Examiner has not identified any structures or teachings that
indicate the presence of “distance changing means” such as the “gas feed
means with an operating state which can be changed such that the wafer-
shaped article is raised or lowered” (Spec. 9, 1st para.) or notched pins that
can be moved perpendicularly to the surface of the wafer (id. at 10, 1st full
para.) These means-plus-function limitations, under 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), are
defined by the corresponding structures (and equivalents) disclosed by the
supporting specification to perform the indicated function. In re Donaldson
Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1192 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Because the Examiner has failed demonstrate that the references
describes an apparatus having all of the limitations recited in the claim,
arranged in the way recited in the claim, and capable of performing all the
functions recited in the claim, we REVERSE.
Appeal 2010-004422
Application 11/584,652

9
C. Order
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-4, 7, 10, and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in view of Tanaka.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-11 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) in view of Langen.
REVERSED

sld

YOUNG & THOMPSON
209 Madison Street
Suite 500
Alexandria VA 22314