Ex Parte Hayashi et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 4, 2009

10146366 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 4, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte TOSHIO HAYASHI,
WEI CHEN, KIPPEI SUGITA and KOUJI KAGA
____________

Appeal 2009-001122
Application 10/146,366
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided:1 June 04, 2009
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, 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 1-3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the Decided Date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-001122
Application 10/146,366

We AFFIRM for the reasons expressed in the Examiner’s Answer and
below.
Statement of the Case
Appellants claim a plasma processing apparatus comprising a radio
frequency antenna coil 34 to which a first radio frequency power source 36
is connected and a substrate mounting electrode 30 to which a second radio
frequency power source 33 is connected, wherein a ground electrode 37 is
provided opposite to the substrate mounting electrode and a shunt 40 is
provided on a feed line between the radio frequency antenna coil 34 and the
first radio frequency power source 36 for supplying a part of radio frequency
power from the radio frequency power source to the opposite ground
electrode 37 through a capacitor 41, 42 connected to the shunt thereby
generating a self-bias in the opposite electrode (Figs. 4-6; claim 1).
Representative independent claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A plasma processing apparatus in which gas is introduced into a
vacuum chamber so as to form inductively coupled discharge plasma by
means of at least one radio frequency antenna coil to which a first radio
frequency power source is connected, and a substrate mounting electrode is
supplied with a radio frequency power from a second radio frequency power
source connected thereto so as to generate a negative self-bias in the
substrate mounting electrode, wherein a ground electrode is provided at the
position opposite to the substrate mounting electrode and is arranged as an
opposite electrode whose potential is kept in a floating state by a dielectric
material, and a shunt is provided on a feed line between the radio frequency
antenna coil and the first radio frequency power source for applying a part of
radio frequency power from the radio frequency power source to the
opposite electrode through a capacitor connected to the shunt, thereby
generating a self-bias in the opposite electrode.

The references set forth below are relied upon by the Examiner as
evidence of obviousness (Ans. 3):
2
Appeal 2009-001122
Application 10/146,366

Collins 5,556,501 Sep. 17, 1996
Ye 5,710,486 Jan. 20, 1998
Qian 6,447,636 B1 Sep. 10, 2002
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ye in view of Collins and correspondingly rejects
claim 2 over these references and further in view of Qian.
Issue
Have Appellants shown error in the Examiner’s finding that the
Figure 8 disclosure of Ye satisfies the shunt feature required by claim 1?
Findings of Fact
The Examiner finds that
Ye . . . shows the invention substantially as claimed
including a plasma processing apparatus . . . [wherein] a
shunt is provided on a feed line between the radio frequency
antenna coil [74] and the first radio frequency power source
[72] for applying a part of radio frequency power from the
radio frequency power source to the opposite electrode [62]
through a capacitor [94] connected to the shunt, thereby
generating a self-bias in the opposite electrode (see fig. 8 and
its description)

(Ans. para. bridging 4-5).
The plasma processing apparatus shown in Figure 8 of Ye comprises
common RF source 72 which supplies power to a power splitting capacitor
90 comprising a common electrode 92 and plural parallel capacitor
electrodes 94, 96, 98 which respectively supply power to top electrode 92,
coil 74, and bottom electrode 60 (Fig. 8; col. 5, ll. 50-58).

3
Appeal 2009-001122
Application 10/146,366

Principles of Law
“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by
showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the
prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.” In
re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86. See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2007).
Analysis
In this appeal, the attempt by Appellants to overcome the Examiner’s
§ 103 rejections is limited to the argument that the Examiner erred in finding
Ye’s Figure 8 apparatus satisfies the shunt feature of independent claim 1.
No dependent claim has been separately argued including separately rejected
dependent claim 2. Therefore, all appealed claims will stand or fall with
independent claim 1.
According to Appellants, “[a] shunt is a branch which allows
electrical current to pass around a point in a circuit” (Amended Br. 8, first
full para.), and “[t]here is no shunt that branches off any line in Figure 8 of
Ye” (id. at para. bridging 8-9).
The Examiner responds to this argument as follows:
Appellant's [sic, Appellants] argue[ ] that fig. 8 of Ye et
al. does not suggest the claimed shunt. However, the
examiner respectfully disagrees because it is clear from fig. 8
of Ye et al. that initially there is a main branch that comes off
the power supply 72, and then the RF power is branched to
the top plate 62, coil 74, and bottom plate 60. Note that
clearly the main branch line can be considered to be the line
coming directly from the power supply and continuing to
directly power the coils with the shunt being branched off of
this line and connecting with the top plate. Furthermore note
that with respect to appellant's [sic] definition of a shunt as
being a branch which allows electrical current to pass around
4
Appeal 2009-001122
Application 10/146,366

a point in a circuit (see pre-appeal brief, Section B -
argument 1a), figure 8 of Ye et al. clearly reads on such a
definition since the upper branch will provide electrical
current to the top electrode 62 around points in the circuit
which provide current to the coils and the substrate mounting
electrode.

(Ans. para. bridging 6-7).
We agree with the Examiner.
Contrary to Appellants’ argument, Figure 8 of Ye shows a branch off
the main line leading from common RF source 72. This branch includes
parallel capacitor 94 and leads to top electrode 62. Moreover, the Examiner
correctly finds that this branch allows electrical current to pass around the
points in Ye’s circuit which supply power from the main line for common
RF power to coil 74 and bottom electrode 60. Therefore, as correctly
observed by the Examiner, the branch of Ye’s circuit which leads to top
electrode 62 falls within Appellants’ above-quoted definition of the term
“shunt”.
In an apparent attempt to distinguish the shunt feature of claim 1 from
the Figure 8 circuit of Ye, Appellants state (correctly) that “the power
supplied from source RF1 [of Ye] travels in . . . a first path from power
source RF1, through splitting capacitor 90, through parallel capacitor 94, and
to top plate 62” and in “a second path from power source RF1, through
splitting capacitor 90, through parallel capacitor 96, and to coil 74”
(Amended Br. para. bridging 8-9). However, we do not perceive and
Appellants do not explain why the claim 1 shunt feature is thought by
Appellants to be distinguished from this correct description of the paths
traveled by power in Ye’s Figure 8 circuit. To the contrary, these paths of
5
Appeal 2009-001122
Application 10/146,366

Ye correspond to the paths shown in the circuits of Appellants’ Figures 4
and 5 wherein power travels from source 36 to top plate 37 and coil 34
respectively. In this sense, Appellants’ description of the paths traveled by
power in Ye’s Figure 8 circuit supports the Examiner’s finding that this
circuit satisfies the shunt feature of claim 1.
Finally, Appellants state that “[t]he examiner takes the position in
essence that the power splitting capacitor 90 [of Ye] is the same as the shunt
in the claims” and argue that, “[o]n its face, a shunt and a power splitting
capacity [sic, capacitor] are different” (Reply Br. 2). However, as explained
above and more fully in the Answer, the Examiner’s finding that Ye satisfies
the claim 1 shunt feature is not limited to the power splitting capacitor 90
shown in Figure 8 of Ye. Instead, this finding is based on the portion of
Ye’s Figure 8 circuit that includes the line or branch with capacitor 94 which
leads from the main line for common RF power to top electrode 62. It
follows that the argument under consideration is unpersuasive because it is
premised on an inaccurate representation of the basis for the Examiner’s
finding.
Conclusions of Law
Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s finding that the
Figure 8 disclosure of Ye satisfies the shunt feature required by claim 1.
For this reason, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims
1 and 3 over Ye and Collins and of claim 2 over Ye, Collins, and Qian.
Order
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.

6
Appeal 2009-001122
Application 10/146,366

ssl

LUCAS & MERCANTI, LLP
475 PARK AVENUE SOUTH
15TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10016
7