Ex Parte Hoffman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2013

11046656 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/046,656 01/28/2005 Daniel J. Hoffman 006767 USA
P02/ETCH/DRIE/
1062
44843 7590 03/27/2013
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT M. WALLACE
2112 EASTMAN AVENUE, SUITE 102
VENTURA, CA 93003
EXAMINER
DHINGRA, RAKESH KUMAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2013 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DANIEL J. HOFFMAN,
ROGER A. LINDLEY, MICHAEL C. KUTNEY,
MARTIN J. SALINAS, HAMID F. TRAVASSOLI,
KEIJI HORIOKA, and DOUGLAS A. BUCHBERGER, JR.
____________

Appeal 2012-000966
Application 11/046,656
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHARLES F. WARREN, and
GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, 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 31-37 and 40-42. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.
We REVERSE.
Appellants claim a method of processing a wafer in a plasma reactor
which comprises:

Appeal 2012-000966
Application11/046,656

2
generating a plasma,
generating a DC magnetic field by applying respective DC current
levels to concentric inner and outer DC coils,
determining an uncorrected plasma ion density distribution (Fig. 70
block 461),
determining changes in plasma ion density distribution as functions of
DC current applied one at a time to respective ones of the DC coils (i.e.,
electromagnets) (id. at blocks 463, 465, 467),
mathematically adding the functions with the uncorrected plasma
distribution for different combinations of DC currents so as to compute
plural trial plasma ion density distributions (id. at block 469),
searching the trial plasma ion density distributions for one
corresponding to a desired correction and determining a corrective set of
currents associated with the one trial density distribution (id. at block 473),
and
performing the desired correction by applying the corrective set of
currents to the coils (id. at block 475) (independent claims 31 and 40).

Representative independent claim 31 reads as follows:
31. A method of processing a wafer in a plasma reactor
comprising a workpiece support surface and an overhead source
power applicator overlying a ceiling of the reactor and facing said
workpiece support surface, comprising:

generating a plasma in a process region over said workpiece
support surface while supporting the workpiece on said workpiece
support surface;

Appeal 2012-000966
Application11/046,656

3
generating a DC magnetic field in said process region by
applying respective DC current levels to concentric inner and outer
DC coils above and displaced by different distances from said RF
source power applicator [sic, no strict antecedent basis] and to a
bottom DC coil at an axial location below said wafer;

determining an uncorrected plasma ion density distribution at
said workpiece support surface;

determining changes in plasma ion density distribution as
functions of D.C. current applied one at a time to respective ones of
said inner, outer and bottom electromagnets [sic, no strict antecedent
basis];

mathematically adding said functions with said uncorrected
plasma distribution for different combinations of D.C. currents
applied to said inner, outer and bottom electromagnets, so as to
compute plural trial plasma ion density distributions;

searching said trial plasma ion density distributions for at least
one corresponding to a desired correction in plasma ion density
distribution, and determining a corrective set of currents
corresponding to coil currents associated with the one trial density
distribution; and

performing the desired correction by applying said corrective
set of currents to respective ones of said inner, outer and bottom
electromagnets.

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner rejects:
(1) independent claims 31 and 40 as well as remaining dependent
claims 32-37, 41, and 42 as unpatentable over Sato (US 4,963,242, issued
Oct. 16, 1990) in view of Chen (US 5,198,725, issued Mar. 30, 1998), Pu
(US 5,674,321, issued Oct. 7, 1997), and Misonoo (JP 08 167588 A,
published Jun. 25, 1996),
Appeal 2012-000966
Application11/046,656

4
(2) independent claim 31 and dependent claims 32-37 as unpatentable
over Gibson (US 6,110,395, issued Aug. 29, 2000) in view of Chen, Pu, and
Misonoo, and
(3) dependent claims 33, 37, 41, and 42 as unpatentable over Sato in
view of Chen, Pu, Misonoo, and Mitani (JP 11 016893 A, published Jan. 22,
1999).
In rejection (1) of independent claims 31 and 40, the Examiner finds
that Sato does not disclose the claimed steps for ultimately determining
currents for individual coils to achieve a desired plasma distribution (Ans. 6)
but concludes that it would have been obvious to provide the Sato method
with these claimed steps in view of Pu and Misonoo (id. at 7-8). In rejection
(2) of independent claim 31, the Examiner states that "Chen, Pu [] and
Misonoo [] are applied to Gibson similarly and the discussion is not
repeated" (id. at 9).
Appellants argue that the applied references do not suggest their
claimed steps of (i) determining changes in (i.e., measuring) plasma ion
density distributions as functions of currents applied to each coil alone or (ii)
mathematically adding (i.e., combining) the functions with the uncorrected
plasma distribution so as to compute plural trial distributions or (iii)
searching these trial distributions for a desirable one and determining the
coil currents associated with the chosen trial distribution (see, e.g., App. Br.
8). More specifically, Appellants contend that Pu would not have suggested
these claimed steps because this reference teaches a human operator selects
current magnitudes wherein the selected currents are those which the
operator believes will produce the desired result (id. at 9). Appellants
further contend that the Examiner fails to establish any suggestion in
Appeal 2012-000966
Application11/046,656

5
Misonoo of the claimed computing (i.e., computing plural trial plasma ion
density distributions) or searching steps (id.).
"Rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) quoted with
approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417-18 (2007).
The Examiner's obviousness conclusion regarding the claimed steps
under consideration is not supported by articulated reasoning with rational
underpinning. In the rejections themselves and in the response to
Appellants' arguments, the Examiner fails to explain with meaningful
specificity why the cited disclosures of Pu and Misonoo would have
suggested each of the requirements defined by the "determining changes"
step, the "mathematically adding" step, and the "searching . . . and
determining" step of the independent claims. For example, in responding to
Appellants' arguments that the applied references do not suggest these
claimed steps, the Examiner merely proposes that computed trial
distributions would be the same regardless of whether current is applied to
the coils one at a time (as claimed) or simultaneously (Ans. 11-12). Whether
correct or not, this proposition has no apparent relevance to the arguments
and claim requirements in question.
For these reasons, Appellants' arguments persuade us that the
Examiner has erred in concluding that the above discussed steps of the
independent claims would have been obvious. Based on the record before
us, this conclusion is merely a conclusory statement unsupported by
Appeal 2012-000966
Application11/046,656

6
articulated reasoning with rational underpinning. It follows that none of the
Examiner's § 103 rejections will be sustained.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
cam