Ex Parte Lujan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 21, 2014

11115065 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 21, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RANDALL LUJAN, AHMED ALI,
MICHELLE GAREL and JOSH TUCKER
____________
Appeal 2012-006450
Application 11/115,065
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, ANNETTE R. REIMERS and
THOMAS F. SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Randall Lujan et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 34-40 and 47-59 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Kim (US 6,910,954 B2, iss. June 28, 2005,
hereinafter “Kim”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2012-006450
Application 11/115,065

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
independent claim 34, which is reproduced below, emphasizing the key
disputed limitation.
34. A chemical mechanical polishing system,
comprising:
a platen adapted to engage a workpiece;
a first source of fluid having a controllable output
capable of delivering a first fluid to the platen:
a second source of fluid having a controllable output
capable of delivering a second fluid to the platen;
a first controller adapted to generate a first signal capable
of controlling the outputs of the first and second sources of
fluid;
a modifier capable of modifying the first signal to
produce a second signal capable of controlling the output of
the second source of fluid, wherein the second signal is
produced substantially concurrently with the first signal,
wherein the first controller and the modifier may be
selectively controlled to determine an amount of the first f1uid
and an amount of the second fluid delivered to the platen.

ANALYSIS
Claims 34-40 and 47-59 as anticipated by Kim.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner failed
to establish a prima facie showing of anticipation in rejecting claims 34-40
and 47-59 over Kim.
The Examiner contends that Kim discloses
a controller 19b to output signals 16 and 17, to control slurry
and additive (both flow rate and solution), respectively, then if
the diluted slurry or additive are out of range, a modifier kicks
in that produces another signal 13 that modifies signals 16 and
17 to halt operation, i.e. controls output of second source of
fluid (slurry) by halting the addition of any more fluid. Signal
Appeal 2012-006450
Application 11/115,065

3
13 most definitely overrides signals 16 and 17 by halting
operation.
Ans. 5-6.
Appellants argue that “Kim does not teach, expressly or inherently, ‘a
modifier capable of modifying the first signal to produce a second signal
capable of controlling the output of the second source of fluid’” App. Br. 15
(emphasis in original). We agree that the Examiner misreads Kim. Kim
teaches a controller 19b that transmits signals ɸ16 and ɸ17 (along with ɸ11
and ɸ12) “to cause first P.O.U. [point of use] mixing unit 11 to create a first
mixed slurry having a first mixing ratio.” See Kim col, 8, ll. 33-35. Kim
further teaches that “[t]he mixing ratio of the mixed slurry that flows out of
the first P.O.U. mixing unit 11 may be measured using a first
conductivity measurer 81,” which “transmits a measured mixing ratio to the
sub control unit 19b.” Id. at col. 8, ll. 45-50. Kim also teaches that if the
measured flow rate of the diluted slurry and the measured flow rate of the
additive are outside of an allowable range or if the measured mixing ratio of
the mixed slurry is outside of an allowable range, “the sub control unit 19b
transmits a first CMP [chemical mechanical polishing] process stop signal
ɸ13 to first CMP machine 15 to halt operation of the first CMP machine 15.”
Id. at col. 8, ll. 50-56.
It is not apparent from the record before us why the Examiner believes
Kim’s sub control unit 19b, which produces signal ɸ13, modifies signals ɸ16
and ɸ17, or signals ɸ11and ɸ12 to produce signal ɸ 13 for the purpose of
halting the flow of slurry from mixing unit 11 to the first CMP machine 15.
Signals ɸ16 and ɸ17 always appear to be output from the sub control unit
19b (note arrow direction in Fig. 1) and there is no indication in Kim what
happens to signals ɸ11and ɸ12 in sub control unit 19b when process stop
Appeal 2012-006450
Application 11/115,065

4
signal ɸ13 begins to be transmitted. Thus, the Examiner has not established
that any of signals ɸ16, ɸ17, ɸ11or ɸ12 are “modified” to produce stop
signal ɸ13. See Ans. 5-6; See also App. Br. 15-16. We agree with
Appellants that “[m]erely introducing a new signal to ‘halt operation’ does
not teach or suggest that the previous signal was modified.” App. Br. 15.
[U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document
not only all of the elements of a claimed invention but also all of those
elements arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it
cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot
anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102. See Net MoneyIN, Inc., v. VeriSign, Inc.,
545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 34-40 and 47-59 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Kim.

DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 34-40 and 47-59
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kim.

REVERSED

Klh