Ex parte Kojima et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 27, 1998

07817961 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 27, 1998)

Application for patent filed January 8, 1992. According1
to appellants, this application is a continuation of Application
07/510,124, filed April 17, 1990, now abandoned.
-1-
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte HIROSHI KOJIMA, YOSHIFUMI TAHARA
and IZUMI ARAI
________________
Appeal No. 95-0142
Application 07/817,9611
________________
HEARD: February 5, 1998
________________
Before METZ, GARRIS and WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the final rejection of
claims 14 through 19 and 21 through 28 which are all of the
claims remaining in the application.
The subject matter on appeal relates to a method of plasma-
etching a wafer which includes the post-etching steps of
Appeal No. 95-0142
Application 07/817,961
-2-
supplying an inactive gas into the processing vessel and
exhausting the vessel while supplying the inactive gas during as
well as after unloading the wafer from the wafer mounting surface
in the vessel. Further details of this appealed subject matter
are set forth in illustrative claim 25, a copy of which taken
from the appellants' brief is appended to this decision.
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Ukai et al. (Ukai) 4,816,638 Mar. 28, 1989
Jucha et al. (Jucha) 4,915,777 Apr. 10, 1990
(filed Mar. 2, 1989)
All of the appealed claims are rejected under the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 which the examiner considers to be
violated by the last two steps recited in each of the independent
claims on appeal.
All of the appealed claims are newly rejected in the answer
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jucha in view of
Ukai.
We refer to the principal and reply briefs and to the
principal and supplemental answers for a complete exposition of
the opposing viewpoints advanced by the appellants and the
examiner concerning the above-noted rejections.
OPINION
We cannot sustain either of these rejections.
Appeal No. 95-0142
Application 07/817,961
-3-
The § 112 Rejection
The examiner has been less than a model of clarity as to
whether his § 112, first paragraph, rejection is based upon
noncompliance with the enablement requirement versus the written
description requirement of this paragraph. To the extent that it
is based upon nonenablement, the § 112 rejection plainly cannot
be sustained since the examiner has failed to advance any
reasoning whatsoever inconsistent with enablement pursuant to his
burden of proof. In re Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d 1229, 1232,
212 USPQ 561, 563 (CCPA 1982).
As for the written description requirement, the test for
compliance therewith is whether the disclosure of the application
as originally filed reasonably conveys to the artisan that the
inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject
matter, rather than the presence or absence of literal support in
the specification for the claim language. In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d
1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983). On page 4
through page 10, line 13, of their principal brief, the
appellants have set forth detailed reasons associated with
specifically identified portions of their specification
disclosure in support of their belief that the originally filed
disclosure of this application would reasonably convey to an
artisan that they had possession as of the filing date of the now
Appeal No. 95-0142
Application 07/817,961
-4-
claimed subject matter including the last two steps of the method
defined by independent claims 25 and 26 on appeal. We fully
agree with the appellants on this matter, and we adopt their
aforementioned reasons as our own for not sustaining the
examiner's § 112 rejection to the extent that it is based upon
the written description requirement.
In light of the foregoing, we cannot sustain the examiner's
rejection of claims 14 through 19 and 21 through 28 under the
first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
The § 103 Rejection
The examiner concedes that Jucha fails to disclose the
unloading/removing step and the continuing step recited in the
independent claims on appeal but argues that it would have been
obvious to provide the Jucha method with these steps in view of
Ukai. As support for this conclusion of obviousness, the
examiner states that "[u]nder the condition of Fig. 4 of Ukai et
al, the exhaustion of the etching chamber (1) is carried out
while the wafer is being unloaded from the supporting surface and
after the wafer is removed from the etching chamber (col. 6[,]
lines 58-68)" and that "[s]uch an evacuating action to a high
extent serves to force absorbed gases in the processing chamber
and on the substrates into the atmosphere, according to Ukai et
al. (col. 7[,] lines 1-7)" (answer, page 6).
Appeal No. 95-0142
Application 07/817,961
-5-
The Ukai reference contains no teaching or suggestion of
using an inactive gas for purging patentee's processing vessel.
This fact militates against the examiner's position that it would
have been obvious to continue supplying the inactive gas of Jucha
during and after the wafer unloading/removing operation.
However, an even more serious deficiency is unquestionably fatal
to the examiner's obviousness position, namely, the examiner's
above-quoted statements of fact regarding the Ukai disclosure are
clearly erroneous.
Specifically, the "exhaustion" and "evacuating action"
referred to by the examiner do not occur "while the wafer is
being unloaded from the supporting surface and after the wafer is
removed from the etching chamber" as the examiner represents. To
the contrary, these conditions occur while the wafer is being
moved into, rather than removed from, the etching chamber. The
accuracy of this interpretation is most clearly and readily
evinced by Ukai's disclosure that "[s]uch an evacuating
action . . . serves to force absorbed gases on unetched
substrates into the atmosphere" (column 7, lines 1 through 4;
emphasis added). At the risk of belaboring the obvious, the
substrates or wafers would be "unetched" while being moved into
the etching chamber and would be etched while being removed from
the etching chamber.
Appeal No. 95-0142
Application 07/817,961
-6-
In short, the applied references contain no teaching or
suggestion of removing contaminants (e.g., etching by-products)
from a wafer processing vessel via an inactive gas purge as in
Jucha or via an evacuating action as in Ukai during and after the
wafer unloading/removing step. It follows that we cannot sustain
the examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 14 through 19 and 21
through 28 as being unpatentable over Jucha in view of Ukai.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
ANDREW H. METZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
BRADLEY R. GARRIS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
THOMAS A. WALTZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-0142
Application 07/817,961
-7-
Oblon, Spivak, McClelland,
Maier & Neustadt
1755 Jefferson Davis Hwy., 4th Floor
Arlington, VA 22202
Appeal No. 95-0142
Application 07/817,961
-1-
APPENDIX
25. A method of plasma-etching a wafer by using an
apparatus comprising a processing vessel, wafer supporting means
provided in the vessel and having a wafer mounting surface,
cooling means for cooling the wafer mounting surface, and means
for forming a radio-frequency electric field in the vessel, said
method comprising the steps of:
loading a wafer on the mounting surface;
etching the wafer by forming a radio-frequency electric
field in the vessel and supplying an etching gas into the vessel
after loading the wafer, thereby exciting the plasma of the
etching gas;
cooling the wafer by the cooling means through the mounting
surface during the etching;
stopping the etching by ending supply of the etching gas and
the forming of the radio-frequency electric field;
beginning supply of an inactive gas into the vessel in
synchronism with said ending of the supply of the etching gas;
exhausting the vessel during said supply of the inactive
gas, and creating a flow of the inactive gas on the wafer and the
mounting surface;
Appeal No. 95-0142
Application 07/817,961
-2-
unloading the wafer from the mounting surface while
continuing said supply of the inactive gas and said exhausting of
the vessel, thereby maintaining said flow of the inactive gas on
the wafer and the mounting surface; and
continuing said supply of the inactive gas and said
exhaustion of the vessel after unloading the wafer, thereby
maintaining said flow of the inactive gas on the mounting surface
and preventing by-products from adhering to the mounting surface
which has been cooled and exposed.