Ex Parte Engesser

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 11, 2010

10929568 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 11, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte PHILIPP ENGESSER
________________

Appeal 2010-000424
Application 10/929,568
Technology Center 1700
________________

Decided: June 11, 2010
________________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, PETER F. KRATZ, and MARK NAGUMO,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-000424
Application 10/929,568

A. Introduction1, 2
Philipp Engesser (“Engesser”) timely appeals under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection3 of claims 1-7. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We REVERSE.
The subject matter on appeal relates to “liquid treatment” of wafers,
e.g., in semiconductor processing. According to the 568 Specification,
liquid treatment encompasses wet etching, wet cleaning, or wet chemical
application of layers. (Spec. 2, last para.) The claimed process involves
bringing a wafer parallel to a mask, close enough that a liquid can be held in
the gap by capillary forces, introducing liquid into the gap, then separating
the wafer from the mask until the liquid film in the gap tears, and then
removing the liquid residue from the wafer surface.
Representative Claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix to
the Principal Brief on Appeal:
1. Process for liquid treatment of a defined area of a wafer-
shaped article (W) comprising the following successive steps:
bringing the wafer-shaped article (W) into proximity of a
mask,

1 Application 10/929,568, Device for Liquid Treatment of Wafer-Shaped
Articles, filed 31 August 2004, claiming the benefit of a parent application
filed 31 October 2001 and of an application filed in the European Patent
Office 31 October 2000. The specification is referred to as the
“568 Specification,” and is cited as “Spec.” The real party in interest is
listed as SEZ AG (Appeal Brief, filed 19 November 2008 (“Br.”), 1.)
2 Heard 8 June 2010. The Official Transcript, which was not available
when this Opinion was entered, will be made of record.
3 Office action mailed 8 April 2008 (“Final Rejection”; cited as “FR”).
2
Appeal 2010-000424
Application 10/929,568

which mask in form and size corresponds to the
defined area which is to be treated with the liquid,
wherein a gap between wafer-shaped article (W)
and the mask is formed and a distance between the
mask and the wafer-shaped article (W) is selected
small enough, so that liquid is held within the gap
through capillary forces;
bringing liquid into the gap between the wafer-shaped
article (W) and the mask;
increasing the distance between the wafer-shaped article
and the mask until a liquid film in the gap tears; and
removing the liquid residues from the wafer-shaped
article surface.
(Claims App., Br. 16; emphasis, paragraphing, and indentation added.)
The Examiner has maintained the following grounds of rejection:4
A. Claims 1-6 stand rejected under obviousness-type
double patenting in view of claims 1-15 of Sax5 and
Sada.6
B. Claims 1-6 stand rejected under obviousness-type
double patenting in view of claims 1-4 of Langen 0927,8
and Sada.

4 Examiner’s Answer mailed 28 April 2009. (“Ans.”).
5 Harry Sax, U.S. Patent 7,279,116 B2 (2007), assigned to SEZ AG.
6 Tetsuya Sada et al., Thin Film Removing Method and Device Therefor,
JP 11-160891 (1999).
7 Kurt Langen, U.S. Patent 6,858,092 B2 (2005), assigned to SEZ AG.
8 The rejections over 10/164,424 (FR 5, ¶ 7) and over Langen 092 (id. at 11,
¶ 10) are substantial duplicates as recognized by Engesser (Br. 10, ¶ 5) and
the Examiner (Ans. 2, ¶ 6).
3
Appeal 2010-000424
Application 10/929,568

C. Claims 1-6 stand rejected under obviousness-type
double patenting in view of claims 1-18 of Langen 1299
and Sada.
D. Claims 1-6 stand rejected under obviousness-type
double patenting in view of claims 1-19 of Langen 20010
and Sada.
E. Claims 1-4 and 6 stand rejected under obviousness-
type double patenting in view of claims 1-10 of
Langen 70211 and Sada.
F. Claims 1-4 and 6 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in view of Sada.
G. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in
view of Tanaka.12
H. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in
view of Konishi.13
I. Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Pirker14 and Sada.
Langen 129, Langen 702, and Langen 129 are related as successive
division applications of the application that issued as Langen 200.
The error in each of the Examiner’s rejections is the attribution of a
teaching of the step of separating the wafer from the mask to “tear” the

9 Kurt Langen, U.S. Patent 7,267,129 B2 (2007), assigned to SEZ AG.
10 Kurt Langen, U.S. Patent 6,435,200 B1 (2002), assigned to Sez
Semiconductor-Equipment Zubehor fur die Halbleiterfertigung AG.
11 Kurt Langen, U.S. Patent 7,007,702 B2 (2006), assigned to SEZ AG.
12 Hideya Tanaka et al., U.S. Patent 5,689,749 (1997).
13 Nobuo Konishi and Keizo Hirose, U.S. Patent 6,012,858 (2000).
14 Willibald Pirker, U.S. Patent 5,896,877 (1999), assigned to Sez
Semiconductor-Equipment Zubehor fur die Halbleiterfertigung AG.
4
Appeal 2010-000424
Application 10/929,568

liquid film in the gap based solely on the disclosure of a device or structure
that indicates the distance between a wafer and some other structure can be
set or varied. The Examiner does not, however, indicate where in any of the
references there is disclosure that the distance between the wafer and any
structure that might be construed to be a “mask” is increased while a liquid
is held between the wafer and the mask by capillary forces.
Thus, the Examiner finds that Sada, in Figure 2, shows
a gap with liquid treating the wafer edge. When the gap is
small the liquid in the gap adheres the inner surface of
mask 3 and the wafer, once the gap distance is increase that
liquid will tear from the mask and be (rinsed, spun, or blown)
due to the centrifugal force (spin chuck) and suction 33.
(FR 17; Ans. 16.) 15 However, as Engesser points out, “solvent discharge
parts 3a-3d . . . include interior nozzles 51 and 52,” so “it is apparent that the
parts do not function as a mask.” (Br. 6, last para.) Moreover, Engesser
argues, “[a] disclosure of an adjustable distance for the nozzles of SADA
hardly suggests a modification [of the primary references] such that the
wafer-shaped article be raised relative to the mask while the liquid film is
resident in the gap therebetween.” (Id. at 7.) Engesser also argues that Sada
“does not describe the gaps e1 and e2 as being variable, much less as being
variable during processing of a substrate G therebetween.” (Id. at para.
bridging 10-11.) The Examiner merely responds that the Figures of Sada
show that the gap can be changed. (Ans. 21.) The Examiner does not
explain where Sada teaches changing the gap while a liquid is present, such

15 For clarity, reference labels are presented in bold font regardless of their
presentation in the original document.
5
Appeal 2010-000424
Application 10/929,568

that the liquid film tears. In the absence of credible evidence that Sada
discloses changing the gap between a wafer and a mask in the presence of a
liquid—and the Examiner admits there is no such disclosure in the
references with which Sada is combined—we REVERSE all rejections
based in whole or in part on Sada.
Similarly, the Examiner bases the anticipation of claim 7 on the
disclosure in Tanaka of an elevator mechanism 34. According to the
Examiner, “[t]he distance is increased between the wafer and the mask until
a liquid film in the gap tears via elevator mechanism 34.” (Ans. 17.)
Engesser argues that Tanaka makes “no mention of lifting the wafer while
the liquid is in the gap B—to the contrary, the patent describes at column 8,
lines 38-47 that the liquid in the gap is expelled by rotating the wafer at high
speed.” (Br., para. bridging 11-12.) Our review of Tanaka indicates that
Engesser’s characterization is accurate. In contrast, we find no indication of
any disclosure that supports the Examiner’s conclusion. Accordingly, we
REVERSE the rejection based on Tanaka.
Finally, the Examiner finds that Konishi describes an apparatus and
method in which “[t]he distance is increased between the wafer and the
mask until a liquid film in the gap tears via elevator mechanism 4.”
(Ans. 17.) The Examiner does not cite any specific disclosure in Konishi in
support of this finding. Engesser’s objections (Br. 12-13) relating to the
absence of gaps that could be widened between the wafer and any structure
that could reasonably be characterized as a mask are well taken. We also
note the absence of any apparent disclosure in Konishi that the elevator 4
6
Appeal 2010-000424
Application 10/929,568

changes the gap between the wafer and any other structure while a liquid is
in the gap. Accordingly, we REVERSE the rejection based on Konishi.
D. Order
We REVERSE all the appealed rejections.
REVERSED

Ssl

YOUNG & THOMPSON
209 MADISON STREET
SUITE 500
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314

7