Ex Parte Leung et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 2, 2011

11087193 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 2, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
11/087,193 03/23/2005 Samuel Leung 009664
DISPLAY/AHRDWR
6552
44257 7590 03/02/2011
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX
3040 POST OAK BOULEVARD, SUITE 1500
HOUSTON, TX 77056
EXAMINER
CHEN, KEATH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1712
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SAMUEL LEUNG and ULRICH A BONNE
____________

Appeal 2010-002933
Application 11/087,193
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-6 and 8. 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, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2010-002933
Application 11/087,193

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is set
forth below:
1. A plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition system for
processing one or more flat panel display substrates, comprising:

a vacuum deposition process chamber configured to contain gas;

a residual gas analyzer configured to analyze the gas within the
vacuum deposition process chamber and to provide feedback, wherein
analyzing the gas comprises monitoring two or more atmospheric gases
selected from nitrogen, oxygen, and argon within the vacuum deposition
process chamber; and

a controller adapted to receive data from the residual gas analyzer,
detect a simultaneous change in concentration of the two or more
atmospheric gases, and alert an operator that atmospheric gases are leaking
into the vacuum deposition process chamber.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Jahns 5,711,843 Jan. 27, 1998
Burnham 5,947,053 Sep. 7, 1999
Cho 6,146,492 Nov. 14, 2000
Ko US 2003/0200924 A1 Oct. 30, 2003
Frees 6,740,195 B2 May 25, 2004

THE REJECTIONS

1. Claims 1-6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ko in view of Frees and Burnham.

2. Claims 1-3, 6, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jahns in view of Burnham.
Appeal 2010-002933
Application 11/087,193

3
3. Claims 4-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Jahns and Burnham in view of Cho.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in determining that the applied prior art would
have suggested the subject matter of claim 1, and in particular, the aspect of
claim 1 pertaining to “a residual gas analyzer . . . wherein analyzing the gas
comprises monitoring two or more atmospheric gases selected from
nitrogen, oxygen, and argon . . .; and a controller adapted to . . . detect a
simultaneous change in concentration of the two or more atmospheric gases?
This issue is dispositive for each of the above-identified rejections.
We answer this question in the negative and AFFIRM.

ANALYSIS
(with Findings of Fact and Principles of Law)

As an initial matter, Appellants have not presented separate arguments
for all of the rejected claims. Rather, Appellants’ arguments are principally
directed to independent claim 1. Any claim not separately argued will stand
or fall with its respective independent claim. Hence, we consider claim 1 in
this appeal. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

1. The Rejection of claims 1-6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ko in view of Frees and Burnham

We essentially adopt the Examiner’s findings pertinent to the issue
raised by Appellants for this rejection. We, therefore, incorporate the
Appeal 2010-002933
Application 11/087,193

4
Examiner’s position as set forth in the Answer as our own. We add the
following for emphasis only.
We refer to the Examiner’s findings made on pages 3-5 of the Answer
and his response made on pages 7-8 of the Answer, in support of his
obviousness conclusion. Therein, the Examiner correctly finds that
Appellants have misinterpreted the teachings of Burnham. The Examiner
explains that Burnham teaches detecting a simultaneous change in
concentration of two or more atmospheric gases because Burnham states that
“if abnormal amounts of H2O, O2, and N2 are detected, in ratios proportional
to those of normal air, then a vacuum leak is suspected”. Burnham, col. 3, ll.
38-41. Burnham also teaches that after detection, the RGA signals to
indicate that there is a leak. Burnham, col. 3, ll. 44-46.
The Examiner’s position is that the teachings of Ko in view of these
teachings of Burnham would have suggested the aspect of claim 1 pertaining
to a residual gas analyzer monitoring two or more gases selected from
nitrogen, oxygen, and argon and a controller to detect a simultaneous change
in the deposition process chamber. Ans. 4. Because Appellants have
misinterpreted the teachings of Burnham, we determine that Appellants have
not identified any error in the Examiner’s position. Furthermore, the
Examiner rightly states that Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive because
they attack the references individually. Ans. 8. For example, Appellants
argue that Ko does not teach use of a gas analyzer associated with leak
detection. Br. 10. However, the Examiner relies upon Burnham for
teaching this aspect of the claimed invention. Ans. 8. The test for
obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art; one cannot show non-
Appeal 2010-002933
Application 11/087,193

5
obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
based on combinations of references. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed.
Cir. 1991); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097-98 (Fed. Cir.
1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
In view of the above, we affirm the rejection.

2. Claims 1-3, 6, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jahns in view of Burnham
We refer to the Examiner’s findings made on pages 5-6 of the
Answer, and also to the Examiner’s response made on pages 8-10 of the
Answer in support of the obviousness rejection.
As in the previous rejection, Appellants similarly assert that the
applied prior art would not have suggested a controller adapted for detecting
a simultaneous change in concentration of two or more atmospheric gases.
Br. 11. As discussed supra, the Examiner relies upon the incorporation of
the teachings of Burnham for suggesting this aspect of the claimed
invention, and because Appellants have misinterpreted Burnham in this
regard, we also determine that Appellants have not identified any error in the
Examiner’s position for this rejection also.
Appellants then argue that there is no reason to believe that one
skilled in the art would have had the need to add a gas analyzer to the optical
method of Jahns for detecting atmospheric leaks. Appellants have
misinterpreted the Examiner’s rejection. As explained by the Examiner in
the paragraph bridging pages 9-10 of the Answer, it is the Examiner’s
position that it would have been obvious to have replaced the optical
Appeal 2010-002933
Application 11/087,193

6
emissions spectroscopy of Jahns with the specific residual gas analyzer of
Burnham to arrive at Appellants’ claimed invention.
Finally, Appellants assert that the Examiner did not provide a
rationale for combining Jahns in view of Burnham. To the contrary, as
explained by the Examiner on page 10 of the Answer, the Examiner states
that a rationale was provided in the Final Office Action dated February 10,
2009. The Examiner then further explains his rationale. Ans. 10.
In view of the above, we affirm the rejection.

3. Claims 4-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Jahns and Burnham in view of Cho

Appellants only argue that Cho does not cure the alleged deficiencies
of the other references discussed supra. Br. 13. Hence, for the same reasons
that we affirmed Rejection 2, we affirm this rejection also.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
Each rejection is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).
AFFIRMED

cam

PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP – APPM/TX
3040 POST OAK BLVD. SUITE 1500
HOUSTON, TX 77056