Ex parte Lantsman

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 28, 2000

08117443 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 28, 2000)

Application for patent filed September 7, 1993.1
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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte ALEXANDER D. LANTSMAN

_____________
Appeal No. 1997-0027
Application 08/117,4431
______________
HEARD: April 17, 2000
_______________
Before PAK, WARREN and WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the examiner’s final
rejection of claims 9 through 15 and 23 through 37 which are
Appeal No. 1997-0027
Application No. 08/117,443
2
all of the claims pending in the application.
The subject matter on appeal is directed to a process and
an apparatus for plasma processing a workpiece. Appellant has
grouped the claims on appeal as follows(Brief, page 6):
Group I - Claims 9 through 15 (process claims); and
Group II - Claims 23 through 37 (apparatus claims).
Therefore, for purposes of this appeal, we will limit our
discussion to the propriety of the examiner’s rejections of
claims 9 and 23 in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and
(c)(8)(iv) (1995). Claims 9 and 23 are reproduced below:
9. A method of plasma processing a workpiece in a vacuum
chamber having a cathode, comprising
evacuating said chamber,
elevating said cathode to a process initiation voltage
relative to said chamber while said chamber is evacuated, said
process initiation voltage being insufficient to fully ignite
or maintain a plasma within said chamber,
flowing a gas into said chamber while maintaining said
cathode at said process initiation voltage, and thereafter
applying electrical power to said cathode to elevate said
cathode to a processing voltage greater than said process
initiation voltage to fully ignite a plasma from said gas
within said chamber and cause electrical current to flow
through said plasma,
maintaining said cathode at said processing voltage to
maintain ignition of a plasma in said chamber while processing
said workpiece within said chamber.
Appeal No. 1997-0027
Application No. 08/117,443
Our reference to this published Japanese Patent2
application is to its corresponding English translation of
record.
3
23. A plasma processing apparatus, comprising
a plasma processing vacuum chamber,
a cathode positioned within said chamber;
a power circuit for electrically driving said cathode,
said power circuit comprising
a primary power supply electrically coupled to said
cathode for electrically driving said cathode to a processing
voltage relative to said chamber to fully ignite a plasma
within said chamber and cause plasma processing,
a secondary power supply electrically coupled to said
cathode for applying a process initiatation voltage relative
to said chamber to said cathode, said process initiation
voltage being smaller in magnitude than said processing
voltage and insufficient to fully ignite or maintain a plasma
within said chamber.
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies on the
following prior art:
Meacham et al. (Meacham) 4,557,819 Dec.
10, 1985
Mashiro 59-222580 Dec. 14,2
1984
(Published Japanese Patent Application)
Appeal No. 1997-0027
Application No. 08/117,443
In the Answer, the examiner inadvertently fails to3
include the § 103 rejection of claims 9 through 15 and 23
through 37 over the combined disclosures of Mashiro and
Meacham. However, it is clear from the examiner’s final
Office action (page 3), the body of the rejection in the
Answer (pages 3 and 4), and appellant’s Brief (page 6), such §
103 rejection has not been withdrawn.
4
Claims 9 through 15, 23, 24, 27, 31 and 32 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the disclosure of
Mashiro. Claims 9 through 15 and 23 through 37 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Mashiro and Meacham. 3
We have carefully reviewed the specification, claims and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments and evidence
advanced by both the examiner and appellant in support of
their respective positions. This review leads us to conclude
that the examiner’s § 103 rejections of the apparatus claims
are well founded. Accordingly, we only affirm the examiner’s
decision rejecting apparatus claims 23, 24, 27, 31 and 32
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the disclosure of Mashiro and
apparatus claims 23 through 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the
Appeal No. 1997-0027
Application No. 08/117,443
5
combined disclosures of Mashiro and Meacham. Our reasons for
this determination follow.
We turn first to the examiner’s rejections of process
claims 9 through 15. We will not sustain these rejections for
essentially those reasons expressed at pages 6 through 10 of
the Brief. We only add that Mashiro does not teach, nor would
have suggested, inter alia, elevating a cathode to a process
initiation voltage which is “insufficient to fully ignite or
maintain a plasma within said chamber” while a vacuum chamber
having such cathode is evacuated. As correctly argued by
appellant at pages 9 and 10 of the Brief, the examiner
improperly read the voltage of the normal power supply in
Mashiro as corresponding to the claimed process initiation
voltage. The statement “[i]f the normal sputtering discharge
should stop for any reason” in Mashiro does not indicate that
the voltage of the normal power supply in Mashiro is
insufficient at all times to fully ignite a plasma or maintain
plasma within the vacuum chamber, i.e., a voltage insufficient
to cause deposition, as required by claim 9. In other words,
it is speculative to conclude that “stop for any reason” means
“stop for an insufficient voltage”. Moreover, we do not find
Appeal No. 1997-0027
Application No. 08/117,443
6
any explanation on the part of the examiner as to why it would
have been obvious to employ the claimed process initiation
voltage in lieu of, or in addition to, the voltage of the
normal power supply used to carry out the normal sputtering
discharge. See Answer in its entirety. Nor do we find any
finding on the part of the examiner as to how Meacham remedies
the above deficiency. Id. The examiner simply fails to meet
his burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness
regarding the claimed process within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejections of apparatus
claims 23 through 37. As correctly found by the examiner at
page 3 and 4 of the Answer, Mashiro discloses a plasma
processing apparatus comprising (1) a plasma processing vacuum
chamber, (2) a cathode positioned within the chamber, and (3)
two power supplies coupled to the cathode. See also Mashiro,
pages 3 and 4, together with Figures 1 and 2. We also find
that it can be inferred from the disclosure of Mashiro that
the power supplies described therein can be adjusted to
produce a desired voltage for a given target material and a
Appeal No. 1997-0027
Application No. 08/117,443
The claimed processing and process initiation voltages4
embrace any and all actual voltages since they are dependent
on, inter alia, target materials, process gas and pressure,
and chamber geometry. See specification, page 3.
7
given chamber dimension since they are said to be applicable
to conventional sputtering devices involving a variety of
target materials and a variety of vacuum chamber sizes. See
page 5. In any event, the power supplies described in Mashiro
are embraced by the claimed power supplies since the claimed
processing and process initiation voltages produced in the
claimed power supplies include those actual voltages produced
by the power supplies described in Mashiro.4
Appellant argues that Mashiro does not teach or suggest
the claimed primary and secondary power supplies for applying
a processing voltage and a process initiation voltage,
respectively. See Brief, pages 10-15. In other words,
appellant takes the position that the functional limitations
of his claim distinguish it over Mashiro. However, when, as
here, the power supplies of Mashiro are capable of operating
or performing the same function as the claimed power supplies
Appeal No. 1997-0027
Application No. 08/117,443
8
and are not shown to be structurally different than the
claimed power supplies, the burden is on appellant to show
that Mashiro’s power supplies do not inherently possess the
claimed functions. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44
USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576,
580, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967). On this record, we find
no evidence that appellant has profered any evidence to meet
such burden. Accordingly, we affirm only the examiner’s
decision rejecting apparatus claims 23, 24, 27, 31 and 32
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mashiro and apparatus claims 23
through 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mashiro and Meacham.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
Appeal No. 1997-0027
Application No. 08/117,443
9
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
CHUNG K. PAK )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHARLES F. WARREN ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
THOMAS A. WALTZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
CKP:pgg
Wood, Herron & Evans
2700 Carew Tower
Cincinnati, OH 45202