Ex Parte Maeda et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2018

14043379 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/043,379 10/01/2013
116 7590 09/05/2018
PEARNE & GORDON LLP
1801 EAST 9TH STREET
SUITE 1200
CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Koji Maeda
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
EBARAl-51748 3863
EXAMINER
JAVED, MIRZA ISRAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1718
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
patdocket@peame.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KOJI MAEDA, HIROSHI SHIMOMOTO,
HISAJIRO NAKANO, MASA YOSHI IMAI, and
YO I CHI SHI OKAW A
Appeal 2017-011833
Application 14/043,379 1
Technology Center 1700
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-5 and 8-11. 2
1 Appellant is the Applicant, EBARA CORPORATION, which, according to
the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) 2,
filed March 28, 2017.
2 Claim 7 has been withdrawn from consideration. Final Office Action
(Final Act.) Office Action Summary, notice emailed December 29, 2016.
Appeal 2017-011833
Application 14/043,379
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). 3
We AFFIRM.
The subject matter on appeal relates to substrate cleaning apparatus
(see, e.g., claim 1 ). The Inventors disclose a wafer is typically cleaned after
it has been polished, such as via an etching liquid and a rinsing liquid. Spec.
1: 14--22. According to the Inventors, conventional cleaning operations take
a long time to complete because the etching process and the rinsing process
are performed separately. Id. 1 :22-24. In view of this, the Inventors
disclose a substrate cleaning apparatus, an embodiment of which is depicted
in Figure 1, which is reproduced below:
FIG.1
Figure 1 is a schematic view of a substrate cleaning apparatus
3 Our Decision additionally refers to the Specification (Spec.) filed January
28, 2014, the Examiner's Answer (Ans.) dated July 27, 2017, and the Reply
Brief (Reply Br.) dated September 26, 2017.
2
Appeal 2017-011833
Application 14/043,379
The substrate cleaning apparatus includes, among other things, a
substrate holder 1, 4 a chemical liquid nozzle 11, a two-fluid nozzle 12, and
an arm 15 holding the chemical liquid nozzle 11 and the two-fluid nozzle 12.
Id. 3: 15-20. The chemical liquid nozzle 11 is coupled to a chemical liquid
supply unit 31 and the two-fluid nozzle 12 is coupled to a liquid supply unit
41 and a gas supply unit 51. Id. 4:9-16.
The Inventors state that the substrate cleaning apparatus is capable of
efficiently cleaning a substrate ( e.g., a wafer) by having a chemical liquid
nozzle for supplying a chemical liquid onto the substrate and a two-fluid
nozzle for supplying a two-fluid jet onto the substrate. Id. 1:27-28, 2:1-9.
According to the Inventors, the chemical liquid can remove foreign matter
from the substrate surface and the two-fluid jet can wash away the chemical
liquid and removed foreign matter from the substrate surface, which shortens
the time required for cleaning the substrate in its entirety. Id. 2: 19-25.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. Limitations at issue are italicized.
1. A substrate cleaning apparatus, comprising:
a substrate holder for holding and rotating a substrate;
a chemical liquid nozzle for supplying a chemical liquid
onto the substrate, the chemical liquid nozzle coupled to a
chemical liquid supply unit;
a two-fluid nozzle for supplying a jet of a mixture of a
liquid and a gas onto the substrate, the two-fluid nozzle coupled
to a liquid supply unit and a gas supply unit; and
a moving mechanism for moving the chemical liquid
nozzle and the two-fluid nozzle together from a center to a
periphery of the substrate along a direction of movement,
wherein the chemical liquid nozzle and the two-fluid
4 Throughout this Decision, for clarity, we present labels to elements in
figures in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
3
Appeal 2017-011833
Application 14/043,379
nozzle are adjacent to each other with a predetermined distance
therebetween, and
the chemical liquid nozzle and the two-fluid nozzle are
secured to the moving mechanism, and
a distance of the chemical liquid nozzle from a rotating
axis of the substrate holder is longer than a distance of the two-
fluid nozzle from the rotating axis of the substrate holder when
the moving mechanism moves the chemical liquid nozzle and
the two-fluid nozzle radially outwardly from the rotating axis
along the direction of movement.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
I. Claims 1, 5, 10, and 11 5 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over Hirose6 in view ofNanba; 7
II. Claims 2--4 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) over Hirose in view ofNanba and further in
view of Oikawa; 8 and
III. Claims 8 and 9 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) over Hirose, Nanba, and Oikawa and further in
view of Okuda. 9
5 The Examiner states claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected in the statement of the
rejection. Ans. 2. However, claim 6 is canceled and the Examiner sets forth
rejections for clams 10 and 11. Appeal Br. 14; Ans. 6-7. Therefore, claims
1, 5, 10, and 11 are rejected under§ I03(a) over Hirose and Nanba.
6 Hirose et al., US 2003/0079764 Al, published May 1, 2003 ("Hirose").
7 Nanba et al., US 2007/0131256 Al, published June 14, 2007 ("Nanba").
8 Oikawa et al., US 2009/0301518 Al, published Dec. 10, 2009 ("Oikawa").
9 Okuda et al., US 2004/0206452 Al, published Oct. 21, 2004 ("Okuda").
4
Appeal 2017-011833
Application 14/043,379
B. DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Claims 1, 5, 10, and 11 are rejected as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hirose in view ofNanba.
The Examiner finds Hirose discloses a substrate cleaning apparatus
including, among other things, a substrate holder 7, a chemical liquid nozzle
35 coupled to a chemical liquid supply unit 39, a two-fluid nozzle 36 for
supplying a mixture of liquid and gas, and a moving mechanism 40, 77 for
moving the chemical liquid nozzle 35 and the two-fluid nozzle 36. Ans. 2.
The Examiner finds Hirose does not explicitly disclose a liquid supply
unit and a gas supply unit for the two-fluid nozzle 36 but finds Nanba
discloses a liquid supply section, a water supply section, and a gas supply
section. Id. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify
Hirose in view ofNanba to improve rinse efficiency. Id. at 3.
The Examiner concludes the distances of the chemical liquid nozzle
and the two-fluid nozzle with respect to a rotating axis of the substrate
holder when the nozzles are radially moved, as recited in claim 1, regards an
intended use. Id. at 3--4. Alternatively, the Examiner concludes it would
have been obvious to modify the nozzles of Hirose, as modified in view of
Nanba, as an obvious rearrangement of parts. Id. at 4.
Appellant contends Hirose does not teach or suggest a moving
mechanism that moves a chemical liquid nozzle and a two-fluid nozzle, as
recited in claim 1, because Hirose discloses moving its liquid nozzle 35 and
two-fluid nozzle 36 so the liquid nozzle 35 is arranged closer to the center of
a wafer than the two-fluid nozzle 36. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant asserts
Hirose' s holding arm 77 is not capable of the movement recited in claim 1
5
Appeal 2017-011833
Application 14/043,379
because "the holding arm 77 cannot move the liquid nozzle 35 and two-fluid
nozzle 3 6 in the leftward direction from the center of wafer W to the left
periphery of wafer W due to interference from the drive pulley 31" and
"[t]he only direction in which the holding arm 77 can move the liquid nozzle
35 and two-fluid nozzle 36 from the center of wafer W to the periphery of
wafer W, as required by claim 1, is the rightward direction." Appeal Br. 7-
8; Reply Br. 3--4.
In addition, Appellant contends the movement limitation of claim 1 is
not an intended use but recites structure that must be realized when the
moving mechanism moves in the claimed manner. Appeal Br. 9; Rely Br. 2.
Appellant argues N anba also fails to disclose the claimed moving
mechanism because N anba does not disclose a two-fluid nozzle and the
combination of Hirose and Nanba does not disclose or suggest the
limitations of claim 1. Appeal Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 6-8.
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive. We agree that claim 1
recites relationships between the distances of the chemical liquid nozzle and
two-fluid nozzle from the rotating axis of the substrate holder when the
nozzles are moved radially outward from the rotating axis by moving
mechanism as an intended use. Claim 1 does not recite a controller or other
device that would cause the moving mechanism to move in the claimed
manner (e.g., according to the embodiment depicted in Appellant's Figures
4A--4E) to cause the recited movement. Instead, the language of claim 1
merely recites the movement as a function or intended use for the claimed
apparatus.
6
Appeal 2017-011833
Application 14/043,379
As our reviewing court stated in In re Schreiber:
A patent applicant is free to recite features of an apparatus
either structurally or functionally. See In re Swinehart, 439 F .2d
210, 212 ( CCP A 1971) ("[T]here is nothing intrinsically wrong
with [ defining something by what it does rather than what it is]
in drafting patent claims."). Yet, choosing to define an element
functionally, i.e., by what it does, carries with it a risk. As our
predecessor court stated in Swinehart, 439 F.2d at 213:
where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a
functional limitation asserted to be critical for
establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter
may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the
prior art, it possesses the authority to require the
applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to
be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic
relied on.
128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Further, "[i]t is well settled that the
recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to
that old product patentable." Id. at 1477.
Therefore, we consider whether Hirose teaches a structure capable of
performing the intended use. Hirose discloses an apparatus for cleaning a
semiconductor wafer substrate. Hirose ,r 2. The apparatus includes a
cleaning unit 50, as embodiment of which is depicted in Figure 4, as
reproduced below.
7
Appeal 2017-011833
Application 14/043,379
85
31
L,
68a
34
68
FIG. 4
50
j
41
82a
' 77
Figure 4 is a plan view of Hirose' s cleaning unit embodiment.
The cleaning unit 50 includes a spin chuck for holding a wafer W, a
rinse nozzle 35 supplied with a rinsing liquid (e.g., deionized water), a two-
fluid nozzle 36 supplied with an inert gas and a liquid ( e.g., deionized
water), a connecting member 40 housing the rinse nozzle 35 and the two-
fluid nozzle 36, and a nozzle holding arm 77 that the connecting member 40
is attached to. Id. ,r,r 71, 74, 76-79. The holding arm 77 is movable along a
guide rail 34 and driven by a stepping motor (not shown in Figure 4) through
a drive pulley 31. Id. ,r 79.
8
Appeal 2017-011833
Application 14/043,379
The Examiner finds Hirose' s apparatus would be capable of the
movement recited in claim 1 simply by moving the holding arm 77 to the
left in Figure 4. Ans. 11-12. We agree that the holding arm 77, as depicted
in Figure 4, would be capable of moving to the left along guide rail 34,
which appears to extend substantially leftward past the center of the wafer
W to drive pulley 31. Thus, the two-fluid nozzle 36 may be positioned left
of the center of the wafer W and the rinse nozzle 35 may be even further to
the left of the wafer center due to the arrangement of the nozzles 35, 36 in
the connecting member 40. As admitted by Appellant at page 4 of the Reply
Brief, "the Examiner is correct in that Hirose' s arm 77 can move left and
right." However, Appellant cites no support in Hirose's disclosure for the
bare assertion that drive pulley 31 would prevent leftward movement so the
two-fluid nozzle 36 is prevented from being positioned past the wafer center
to any degree.
Moreover, because the direction of movement is defined in claim 1 by
the movement of the nozzles from a center to a periphery of the substrate, in
Hirose, this direction is a rightward movement. Once Hirose' s nozzles have
been moved to their greatest leftward extent and begin to move rightward,
Hirose' s chemical liquid nozzle initially will be spaced further from the
rotating axis or center of the substrate than the two-fluid nozzle. Claim 1
does not require that this relationship is maintained during the entire
movement of the nozzles from the center to the periphery of the substrate.
To the extent Hirose's drawings do not accurately depict the cleaning
unit 50 or Hirose's apparatus is otherwise incapable of the intended
movement recited in claim 1, Nanba demonstrates a structure capable of
such a nozzle movement was known in the art, i.e., Nanba's moving
9
Appeal 2017-011833
Application 14/043,379
mechanism is capable of moving the nozzles diametrically across the
substrate from periphery to periphery. As explained by the Examiner (Ans.
10, 12), Nanba demonstrates it was known for a nozzle arm to move in
opposite directions. Figure 9 ofNanba is reproduced below.
10'
'~ ....,........,,........,........_.,,........_~/.~,~-~,~~~~~~
. , /
64--·'11'.:L..EANING-UQUID SUPPLY SECTIONl··
65 PURE-WATER SUPPLY SECTION
66--),..... __ N_r_G-AS-S-UPPL Y SECTION 69
50 / 63'
;
FIG.9
Figure 9 is a plan view of a substrate cleaning apparatus
N anba discloses a cleaning apparatus 10' that includes, among other
things, a process liquid nozzle 61, a pure water nozzle 61a, and a nitrogen
nozzle 62 arranged on a nozzle holding member 63' attached to an end of a
scan arm 67. Nanba ,r 65. The scan arm 67 is mounted to a support member
69 that is placed on a guide rail 68. Id. ,r 40. Figure 9 includes an arrow
labeled "+Y" and an arrow labeled "-Y," as shown above, which indicates
movement of the scan arm 67 in opposite directions. Further, guide rail 68
extends from one side of the wafer W to another, which suggests it was
10
Appeal 2017-011833
Application 14/043,379
known for the nozzles of the nozzle holding member 63' to be positioned
between one edge of a wafer and its opposite edge.
Appellant argues that rearranging the nozzles 35, 36 of Hirose would
destroy Hirose' s intended function of the rinse nozzle 35 to form a liquid
film when the two-fluid nozzle 36 deviates outward from the periphery of a
wafer W and the prior art does not provide a motivation for such a
modification. Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 3-6. These arguments are also
unpersuasive because a modification of Hirose to use the scan arm, support
member, and guide rail ofNanba would be based on the well-established
principle that, for an improvement to be patentable, it must be more than the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions
(i.e., using a known nozzle holding member and scan arm to move and
position nozzles). KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Moreover, although such a modification would permit Hirose's nozzles 35,
36 to move completely to the left edge of the wafer W in Figure 4 of Hirose,
the modification would still permit the nozzles 35, 36 to move rightward, as
taught by Hirose in Figures 9A-9D.
Appellant does not present separate arguments for claims 5, 10, and
11. Appeal Br. 11-12.
For the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the Examiner's
Answer, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 5, 10, and
11 over Hirose and Nanba.
Rejections II and III
Claims 2--4 are rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Hirose in view ofNanba and further in view of Oikawa.
11
Appeal 2017-011833
Application 14/043,379
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Hirose, Nanba, and Oikawa and further in view of Okuda.
Appellant merely reiterates the arguments set forth in support of the
patentability of claim 1 and contends Oikawa and Okuda do not remedy the
deficiencies of the references applied in the rejection of claim 1. Id. For the
reasons set forth above, there are no deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1
that require curing by Oikawa and Okuda.
For the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the Examiner's
Answer, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejections of claims 2--4, 8, and
9.
C. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner 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).
AFFIRMED
12