Ex Parte Mizuniwa et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 28, 201713496366 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/496,366 03/15/2012 Tetsuo Mizuniwa SHI-063 5458 32628 7590 03/02/2017 KANFSAKA RFRNFR AND PARTNFRN FT P EXAMINER 2318 Mill Road WEBB, GREGORY E Suite 1400 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-2848 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1761 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2017 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): office@uspatentagents.com docketing @ ipfirm. com pair_lhhb @ firsttofile. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TETSUO MIZUNIWA and SHIGEYUKI HOSHI Appeal 2016-000393 Application 13/496,3 661 Technology Center 1700 Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision2 finally rejecting claim 73 in the above-identified application. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants identify KURITA WATER INDUSTRIES LTD. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2, Apr. 13, 2015. 2 Final Office Action, Oct. 24, 2014 [hereinafter Action]; Examiner’s Answer, July 30, 2015 [hereinafter Answer], 3 The Action rejected claims 1—5 and 7—9. See Action 4. However, all claims other than claim 7 were canceled by amendment prior to the appeal. See Advisory Action, Feb. 5, 2015; Appeal Br. 7 (claims appendix); Answer 2. Appeal 2016-00039 Application 13/496,366 BACKGROUND Appellants’ invention relates to a “wafer washing method” using “wafer washing water based on ultrapure water that is used in order to rinse a silicon wafer for semiconductor production and does not contaminate the wafer surface with metals even if the ultrapure water contains metal ions on the ng/L (ppt) level.” Spec. 11. Claim 7 is the sole pending claim: 7. A silicon wafer surface washing method, comprising: washing a silicon wafer surface with wafer washing water for rinsing a silicon wafer after cleaning chemicals, the wafer washing water comprising ultrapure water comprising 0.1 — 10 ng/L of metal ions, and a substance added to the ultrapure water, and having an affinity for the metal ions, wherein the substance having the affinity for the metal ions is a hydrophilic organic substance including a sulfonic group, and a concentration of the hydrophilic organic substance including the sulfonic group in terms of a TOC concentration is 1 — 10 pg/L. Appeal Br. 7. The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection: I. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by, or alternatively under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nishiwaki.4 See Action 4—5; Answer 7—8. II. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nishiwaki in view of O’Neill.5 See Answer 4—5. 4 Nishiwaki, U.S. Patent Application No. US 2008/0173328 A1 (published July 24, 2008). 5 O’Neill et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,935,441 (issued Aug. 10, 1999). 2 Appeal 2016-00039 Application 13/496,366 DISCUSSION The Examiner rejects claim 7 on three alternative bases: anticipation by Nishiwaki, obviousness over Nishiwaki, and obviousness over Nishiwaki in view of O’Neill. See Action 4—5; Answer 4—5, 7—8. In summary, the Examiner finds that all the limitations of claim 7 are found in Nishiwaki, except that Nishiwara does not explicitly disclose the metal ion range of the ultrapure water; however, the Examiner finds that range is inherent or obvious in view of the disclosure of Nishiwaki, and that, alternatively, the specific metal ion content for ultrapure water is taught by O’Neill. See id. Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim over Nishiwaki, because unlike claim 7, which is directed to washing off chemicals used for chemical washing, Nishiwaki is directed to a cleaning step for removing metals, abrasive grains, and organic residues from the surface of a substrate after chemical mechanical polishing (CMP). See Appeal Br. 4. Thus, according to Appellants, “the cleaning liquid of Nishiwaki is used for chemical washing, and contains additional chemical materials” other than the “hydrophilic organic substance” of claim 7. Id. Appellants further argue that “the cleaning liquid of Nishiwaki is composed of multiple compositions, while Nishiwaki does not teach what effect(s) each of the composition brings in the cleaning.” Reply Br. 2. These arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 7. As the Examiner correctly noted, see Answer 9, claim 7 defines the wafer washing water using the transitional term “comprising,” which does not exclude other components. Therefore, the presence of other components in the composition disclosed by Nishiwaki 3 Appeal 2016-00039 Application 13/496,366 does not take the Nishiwaki method outside the scope of claim 7, so long as Nishiwaki discloses the “washing” step required by claim 7. Appellants also argues that Nishiwaki does not teach the step of “washing a silicon wafer surface with wafer washing water for rinsing a silicon wafer after cleaning chemicals, as claimed.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellants further argue that “since Nishiwaki uses chemicals for chemical washing, and it is chemical washing itself, not ‘after cleaning chemicals,’ chemicals still remain on the substrate.” Reply Br. 4. According to Appellants, “the cleaning liquid of Nishiwaki is used for the chemical washing (with chemicals contained therein) and not used for subsequent washing to rinse off the chemicals used in the chemical washing.” Appeal Br. 5. We do not find these arguments persuasive of reversible error. As the Examiner correctly finds, see Answer 9—10, the method of claim 7 does not include the performance of a rinsing step that is separate from the washing step. We give claim terms their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We agree with the Examiner that this broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase “wafer washing water for rinsing a silicon wafer after cleaning chemicals,” includes wafer washing water that is used for rinsing a silicon wafer after CMP, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood as a type of chemical cleaning: “removal of substances from a substrate to make the substrate smooth.” Answer 10. In addition, the phrase “for rinsing a silicon wafer after cleaning chemicals” does not, by its terms, limit the chemical composition of the wafer washing water. Rather, the phrase expresses an intended purpose for 4 Appeal 2016-00039 Application 13/496,366 the water, which is not limiting, given that the composition is given thereafter in structurally complete terms. C.f. Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1977) (“[W]here a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation.”). In light of the above interpretation of claim 7, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that Nishiwaki discloses a step of “washing a silicon wafer surface with wafer washing water for rinsing a silicon wafer after cleaning chemicals.” Appellants argue that Nishiwaki does not teach the use of a wafer washing water in which the substance with metal affinity has been added beforehand, and “captures metal ions present in the ultrapure water and stabilizes them in water, thereby effectively preventing the metal ions from migrating toward the wafer surface and becoming attached to the wafer surface during washing.” Appeal Br. 5 (citing Spec. 114). Further, Appellants argue that the washing method “is for cleaning ‘bare wafer, ’ having nothing on the silicon wafer surface such as copper wiring,” that the method is “done before the lamination taught in Nishiwaki,” and that “the silicon wafer surface has to be strictly maintained [in] its cleanliness level” to avoid contamination that would adversely affect subsequent lamination. Reply Br. 2. Appellants also argue that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have looked to Nishiwaki for a cleaning method that requires “extremely high cleanliness after the cleaning of a silicon wafer surface,” because “Nishiwaki relates to the cleaning liquid for cleaning conducted after CMP after the multi-film lamination, highly likely to cause corrosion and oxidation of the copper wiring.” Id. Appellants further argue that the 5 Appeal 2016-00039 Application 13/496,366 Examiner “fails to point out how low is low enough to reach the cleanliness of the silicon wafer surface subject to the film laminations.” Reply Br. 4. We do not find these arguments persuasive of reversible error, because while claim 7 requires that the hydrophilic organic substance has an affinity for the metal ions in the ultrapure water, claim 7 does not require any of the specific functionality argued above. For example, claim 7 does not specify the level of cleanliness of the silicon wafer, and the method does not specify any steps prior to or subsequent to the washing step. Appellants argue that Nishiwaki is silent as to both the concentration of the hydrophilic organic substance and the metal ion content of the ultrapure water. See Appeal Br. 5. With regard to the concentration of the hydrophilic organic substance, the Examiner has persuasively shown that Nishiwaki teaches that the composition may comprise polystyrene sulfonic acid in an amount covering a range that overlaps the range of 1 — 10 pg/L at its upper end. See Action 4 (citing Nishiwaki 147); accord Answer 5, 7—8. Alternatively, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to choose a concentration of 10 pg/L “as it is part of the range taught by Nishiwaki.” Answer 8. Appellants do not point to any factual evidence or persuasive argument rebutting the Examiner’s findings with respect to the concentration of the hydrophilic organic substance. Thus, we find no reversible error in the Examiner’s determination. Regarding the limitation that the washing water comprises “ultrapure water comprising 0.1 — ng/L of metal ions,” see Appeal Br. 7, the Examiner finds that Nishiwaki discloses a silicon wafer surface washing method that uses wafer washing water comprising deionized or ultrapure water. Action 6 Appeal 2016-00039 Application 13/496,366 4; Answer 7 (citing Nishiwaki | 59). According to the Examiner, “a low metal ion content would be inherent to the deionized water or super purified water taught by Nishiwaki.” Answer 8; see also id. at 10-11. Alternatively, the Examiner finds that the use of water containing metal ion content in the range of 0.1—10 ng/L would have been obvious because “Nishiwaki teaches the removal of metal ions as these are impurities which can affect the performance of the semiconductor.” Action 5 (citing Nishiwaki H 70—71). The Examiner further finds that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art of cleaning would know to minimize the amount of metal ions in deionized water or super purified water.” Answer 8. As a third alternative, the Examiner finds that “O’Neill generally teaches water purification processes and the creation of ultrapure water with an ion concentration below 10 parts per trillion (10 nanograms per liter; see abstract).” Id. at 5. According to the Examiner, O’Neill “was cited solely to demonstrate what is commonly understood to be the ion concentration range of ultrapure water.” Id. at 11. Appellants note that Nishiwaki does not give a specific range for metal ion content in the ultrapure water, and argue that “O’Neill teaches a system for producing ultrapure water that can be used for a blank standard liquid for blank standard analysis,” teaches that the ultrapure water is “essentially free of organic contaminants,” and is produced by “an oxidizing step where water is exposed to ultraviolet light and an ion exchange step.” Reply Br. 2 (quoting O’Neill abstract, cols. 1—2). Moreover, Appellants argue that “O’Neill does not disclose or suggest anything about a silicon wafer surface washing and is silent as to the concentration of metal ions as claimed.” Id. at 2—3. 7 Appeal 2016-00039 Application 13/496,366 We do not find these arguments persuasive of reversible error. O’Neill teaches that the ultrapure water contains “less than 10 parts per trillion of ions other than hydrogen ions and hydroxide ions.” O’Neill 2:52— 55. These ions would include metal ions. Moreover, the Examiner cited O’Neill for its teaching as to the common understanding in the art as to the composition of ultrapure water. See Answer 11. The standard for obviousness does not require bodily incorporation of the O’Neill invention into the disclosure of Nishiwaki. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). In addition, Appellants have not pointed to evidence, or provided any persuasive argument responding to the Examiner’s findings that metal ion concentration was known in the art to affect semiconductor performance, and that a person of ordinary skill would have been able to minimize that content. See Action 5; Answer 8. “[WJhere the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (Fed. Cir. 1955). The Examiner has persuasively established that metal ion concentration is a result effective variable, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to optimize that content through routine experimentation. For the above reasons, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7. 8 Appeal 2016-00039 Application 13/496,366 DECISION The Examiner’s decision is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal maybe extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2016). AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation