Ex Parte Ettinger et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 28, 2011

11298555 - (D) (B.P.A.I. Apr. 28, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GARY C. ETTINGER, ERIK C. WASINGER, SEN-HOU KO,
WUI-YUNG HSU, LIANG-YUH CHEN, HO SEON SHIN,
and DONALD OLGADO
____________

Appeal 2009-008665
Application 11/298,555
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, PETER F. KRATZ, and MARK
NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 14-21 and 23. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.

Appeal 2009-008665
Application 11/298,555
2

Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a substrate edge cleaning
method. A supported polishing film is conformed to an edge of the substrate
110; including an outer edge 110 and at least one bevel 112 and/or 114 (Fig.
1). In addition, the polishing film is angularly translated around an axis
tangential to the substrate outer edge and the substrate is rotated while the
polishing film remains in contact therewith. Claim 14, the sole independent
claim on appeal, is illustrative and reproduced below:
14. A method of cleaning an edge of a substrate comprising:

supporting a polishing film;

contacting the polishing film against an edge of a substrate;

conforming the polishing film to the edge of the substrate, the edge
including an outer edge and at least one bevel;

angularly translating the polishing film around an axis tangential to
the outer edge of the substrate so as to contact the edge of the substrate; and

rotating the substrate while the polishing film remains in contact with
the substrate, such that polishing film cleans the edge of the substrate.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Atoh 2002/0007840 A1 Jan. 24, 2002
Hakomori 6,402,596 B1 Jun. 11, 2002
Wasinger 2007/0131654 A1 Jun. 14, 2007
Toyota 7,217,662 B2 May 15, 2007

Nihon Micro Coating Co., Ltd., Products and Services - Silicon Wafer Edge
Polisher 1-2 (July 20, 2005), /http://www.mipox.co.jp/en/products/
2a_machine/poli.html (hereafter “Nihon”).

Appeal 2009-008665
Application 11/298,555
3
The following grounds of rejection are maintained by the Examiner:
Claims 14-19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hakomori in view of Nihon and Atoh. Claims 20 and 23
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Hakomori in view of Nihon and Toyota. Claims 14, 15, 18-21, and 23 stand
provisionally rejected on the judicially created grounds of non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 23 to 29 of co-pending U.S.
Application No. 11/299,295.
We reverse prior art obviousness rejections for substantially the
reasons argued by Appellants in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief.
Claims 23-29 of co-pending Application No. 11/299295 (the claims
over which the provisional rejection was made) are withdrawn from
consideration in the aforementioned co-pending application. These claims
were subjected to a restriction requirement that was not traversed. As all of
the other grounds of rejection are reversed, it would be premature to reach
the provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection over claims 23-
29 of co-pending Application No. 11/299,295, which application was filed
on December 09, 2005, the same day as the subject Application. The
attention of the Examiner and Appellants are directed to the Manual of
Patent Examining Procedure, § 804 I.B.1 (8th ed., rev. 5, August 2006).
Our reasoning follows.
Hakomori is directed to a single-side polishing method and apparatus
for a wafer. Hakomori’s apparatus includes a member 3 for holding a
substrate in a rotatable manner and a horizontally moveable supporting
member 4 that can cause a polishing strip 20 to come into contact with and
conform to an upper face, including a bevel, and an end face of a wafer edge
2a (col. 5, ll. 7 - 60 and col. 7, ll. 1-10; Figs. 1 and 2).
Appeal 2009-008665
Application 11/298,555
4
Hakomori discloses that a lower side of a leading end of a moving
section 12 of the supporting member 4 can be arranged to agree with the
shape of the wafer edge (col. 6, ll. 34-38).
However, the Examiner has not established that a person having
ordinary skill in the art would have thought that the polishing strip 20 of
Hakomori can or should be angularly translated around an axis tangential the
outer edge of the substrate as part of the wafer cleaning process.
Nihon sketches a wafer edge polisher that employs a polishing tape
with an abrasive surface for cleaning a rotating wafer. There is an arrow
associated with the polishing tape holding member in the figure sketched on
the second page of Nihon.
The Examiner has not established that Nihon’s brief outline disclosure
with respect to a wafer polisher teaches a polishing strip that is or could be
conformed to an outer edge and at least one bevel of a substrate.
A principal issue before us is generated by Appellants’
arguments that the applied references have not been shown by the Examiner
to teach or suggest the claimed wafer cleaning process, wherein a polishing
film is conformed to the outer edge and at least one bevel of a substrate,
such polishing film is angularly translated, and the substrate is rotated while
the polishing film remains in contact therewith.
We determine that the preponderance of the evidence supports
Appellants’ arguments.
The Examiner has reasonably established that Hakomori conforms the
polishing film to an outer edge and at least one bevel of a substrate (Ans. 4
and 7). As correctly argued by Appellants (App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 4-10),
however, the Examiner has not established that Hakomori teaches or
suggests angular translation of the polishing strip as part of a substrate
Appeal 2009-008665
Application 11/298,555
5
(wafer) polishing method by the suppositions presented regarding different
substrate edge shapes that could be accommodated by Hakomori (Ans. 4 and
7).
While Nihon’s page two sketch, as generally referred to by the
Examiner, taken with the polishing head mechanism diagrams shown on
page one, could indicate or suggest some angular translation of a polishing
film about an axis tangential to a substrate outer edge, the Examiner has not
established that Nihon teaches or suggests such a feature for a polishing film
that is also conformed to a substrate outer edge and at least one bevel, as
claimed here. In this regard, the Examiner has not marshaled the evidence
and reasonably established that Hakomori taken with the Nihon’s sketches
and the brief description of Nihon would have led one of ordinary skill in the
art to employ angular translation with the polishing method and apparatus of
Hakomori in a manner that would have resulted in a cleaning method
corresponding to Appellants’ claimed process. After all, Hakomori’s
apparatus and method are directed to single-side polishing of a substrate
(col. 4, ll. 25-26).
The Examiner has not relied upon Atoh or Toyota for teaching
angular translation and conforming a polishing film to an outer edge and at
least one bevel of a substrate as required by the appealed claims.
It follows that we shall reverse both of the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections, on this appeal record.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 14-19, and 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hakomori in view of Nihon and
Atoh; and claims 20 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Hakomori in view of Nihon and Toyota is reversed.
Appeal 2009-008665
Application 11/298,555
6
We do not reach the provisional obviousness-type double patenting
rejection of claims 14, 15, 18-21, and 23 over claims 23 to 29 of co-pending
U.S. Application No. 11/299,295.

REVERSED

ssl