Ex Parte Mosely et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 31, 2003

09370599 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 31, 2003)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 23
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte RODERICK CRAIG MOSELY,
HONG ZHANG,
FUSEN CHEN,
and PALO ALTO
____________
Appeal No. 2003-0548
Application No. 09/370,599
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before GARRIS, PAK and KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner’s refusal to
allow claims 14-20, 29, 31-35, 38-53, 60-66 and 69-75, which are
all of the claims pending in this application.
Appeal No. 2003-0548
Application No. 09/370,599
Page 2
BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention relates to an apparatus for processing
a semiconductor substrate. An understanding of the invention can
be derived from a reading of exemplary claims 14 and 40, which
are reproduced below.
14. An apparatus for providing improved processing of
a semiconductor substrate, comprising:
a) a load lock chamber, at least one means for
chemical vapor deposition (CVD), and at least one means
for physical vapor deposition (CVD); and
b) an intermediate substrate transport region
comprising a first substrate transport chamber and a
second substrate transport chamber, wherein one or more
of the at least one means for CVD and one or more of
the at least one means for PVD are disposed on the
second transport chamber.
40. An apparatus for providing improved processing of a
semiconductor substrate, comprising:
a) a load lock chamber,
b) an intermediate substrate transport region
connected to the load lock chamber, the intermediate
subtsrate transport region comprising a first substrate
transport chamber and a second substrate transport
chamber, wherein the second substrate transport chamber
has a lower vaccum than the first substrate transprot
chamber;
c) one or more processing chambers, wherein at
least one of the one or more processing chambers is a
chemical vapor deposition (CVD) processing chamber
disposed on the second substrate transport chamber, and
d) one or more vaccum pumps communicating with the
intermediate substrate transport region and each of the
one or more processing chambers.
Appeal No. 2003-0548
Application No. 09/370,599
Page 3
The sole prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Sato et al. (Sato) 5,286,296 Feb. 15, 1994
Claims 14-20, 29, 31-35, 38-53, 60-66 and 69-75 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sato.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced
by appellants and the examiner and have determined that the
inventions recited in appellants’ claims 40 and 41 are
unpatentable. Accordingly, we sustain the aforementioned
rejection of those claims. However, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 14-20, 29, 31-35, 38, 39, 42-53, 60-66 and
69-75 on this record. Our reasons follow.
Appellants, in essence, present the following groups of
claims: 1) claims 14-20, 29, 31-35, 38, 39, 42-53, 60-66 and 69-
75 and 2) claims 40-46. Appellants identify claims 42-46 as
being a part of each claim grouping, which claims do not stand or
fall together with either grouping.
Each of the claims in appellants’ first claim grouping
including separately argued claims 42-46 requires an apparatus
for processing a substrate including first and second substrate
Appeal No. 2003-0548
Application No. 09/370,599
Page 4
1 chemical vapor deposition
2 physical vapor deposition
3 Both appellants and the examiner have represented that a
CVD chamber or CVD means as claimed is a distinct structure from
a PVD chamber or PVD means as claimed as evident by the arguments
brought before us in appeal. We decide this appeal based on that
undisputed and seemingly agreed upon understanding of the claimed
subject matter on this record.
transport chambers wherein both at least one CVD1 processing
chamber and at least one PVD2 processing chamber (or at least one
means for CVD and at least one means for PVD) are disposed on the
second transport chamber. The substrate that is processed may be
a semiconductor wafer.
According to the examiner, Sato discloses multi-chamber
wafer processing equipment that essentially corresponds to the
structure required by appellants’ first claim grouping but for
disposition of the PVD and CVD means (chamber).3 See page 3 of
the answer wherein the examiner refers to the figure 7 embodiment
of Sato and a portion of the text of Sato.
The examiner (answer, page 3) takes the position that “[i]t
would have been obvious to couple a PVD chamber and a CVD chamber
to the same transfer chamber (129) of Sato because such an
arrangement would be a mere rearrangement of the conventional
processing chambers so as to produce the desired sequence of
Appeal No. 2003-0548
Application No. 09/370,599
Page 5
processing.” The examiner makes the further point that there is
“[n]othing in Sato’s disclosure to indicate that PVD and CVD
chambers must be separately connected to different transfer
chambers.” See page 5 of the answer.
On this record, we side with appellants. In particular, we
note that the examiner has not pointed to any particularized
suggestion in the teachings of the sole applied reference that
would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to make the
proposed equipment modification for any purpose other than “mere
rearrangement.”
Absent further evidence or particularized factual findings
by the examiner, it is our view that the motivation for the
examiner’s stated rejection appears to come solely from
appellants’ specification and drawings. Certainly, the examiner
has not convincingly established how the applied reference would
have led a skilled artisan to the herein claimed apparatus.
Thus, the record indicates that the examiner used impermissible
hindsight when rejecting the claims. See W.L. Gore & Associates
v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984); In re Rothermel,
276 F.2d 393, 396, 125 USPQ 328, 331 (CCPA 1960). Accordingly,
on this record, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
Appeal No. 2003-0548
Application No. 09/370,599
Page 6
claims 14-20, 29, 31-35, 38, 39, 42-53, 60-66 and 69-75 for the
reasons set forth above and as developed in appellants’ briefs.
Our disposition of the examiner’s § 103 rejection as applied
to claims 40 and 41 is another matter. At the outset, we note
that appellants have not identified claims 40 and 41 as being
separately argued member claims of appellants’ second claim
grouping. Consequently, we select claim 40 as the representative
claim for purposes of deciding this appeal as to the rejection of
these claims. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (2000). See In re
McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir.
2002) (“if the brief fails to meet either requirement [of the
rule], the Board is free to select a single claim from each group
of claims subject to a common ground of rejection as
representative of all claims in that group and to decide the
appeal of that rejection based solely on the selected
representative claim”). Thus, we appropriately confine our
discussion to claim 40.
Here, the examiner (answer, pages 3, 4 and 6) has determined
that the structure called for by representative claim 40 does not
patentably distinguish over the apparatus taught by Sato.
Appellants urge that Sato does not teach that the substrate
transport chamber holding the CVD chamber of Sato possesses a
Appeal No. 2003-0548
Application No. 09/370,599
Page 7
4 A lower vacuum would normally be understood to correspond
to a higher pressure and a higher vacuum would correspond with a
lower pressure. Prior to final disposition of this application,
the examiner should determine whether or not appellants refer to
decreasing pressure in their original specification in a manner
that is inconsistent with the relative vacuums set forth in claim
40. See, e.g., page 6, lines 11-14 of the specification. If so,
the examiner and appellants should take appropriate steps to
purge the application of such inconsistencies and address any
possible new matter that may have crept into the amended claims.
The examiner should also make sure that appellants’ drawing
figures are in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.83 (a).
lower vacuum4 than the other substrate transport chamber.
However, the examiner has essentially made the reasonable factual
determination that the transport chamber (123, figure 7) of Sato,
on which a CVD chamber (126) is disposed, constitutes a structure
that is capable of maintaining a lower relative vacuum than the
other transport chamber (129).
We agree. Also, appellants seemingly acknowledge their
agreement with that finding of the examiner. In this regard,
appellants state “Sato et al. disclose a CVD chamber disposed on
a first wafer transport chamber, where the first transport
chamber has a lower vacuum than the second wafer transport
chamber, which includes a PVD processing chamber.” See page 3
Appeal No. 2003-0548
Application No. 09/370,599
Page 8
5 Moreover, appellants have not established on this record
that a functional limitation such as the relative degree of
vacuum maintained in a particular chamber constitutes a
structural distinguishing limitation for the claimed apparatus.
See In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959, 177 USPQ 705, 706 (CCPA
1973); In re Finsterwalder, 436 F.2d 1028, 1032, 168 USPQ 530,
534 (CCPA 1971); In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580, 152 USPQ 235,
238 (CCPA 1967); and In re Lundberg, 244 F.2d 543, 546-47, 113
USPQ 530, 533 (CCPA 1957).
of the reply brief and column 3, lines 12-19 and the sentence
bridging columns 7 and 8 of Sato.5
Appellants’ argument with the examiner’s obviousness
determination focuses on appellants’ denotation of the transport
chamber (123, figure 7) of Sato as corresponding to appellants’
first transport chamber whereas the examiner refers to that
transport chamber (123, figure 7) of Sato as corresponding to
appellants’ second transport chamber. See the sentence bridging
pages 3 and 4 of the answer. We agree with the examiner’s
assessment in that the designation of a particular transport
chamber as a “first” or “second” transport chamber in
representative claim 40 does not, by itself, require that those
particular transport chambers be arranged in any particular
connecting sequence with the other structural elements recited in
representative claim 40. In other words, the mere
characterization of a claimed apparatus element by a particular
Appeal No. 2003-0548
Application No. 09/370,599
Page 9
assigned name does not define a structural distinction over the
applied prior art wherein a corresponding structure is simply
denoted by a different name.
Consequently, we agree with the examiner that a prima facie
case of obviousness of the structure of representative claim 40
has been established. We note that no convincing argument or
evidence has been furnished by appellants establishing a
patentable distinction between appellants’ structure, as defined
in representative claim 40 and that of the applied prior art.
Consequently on this record, we shall affirm the examiner’s § 103
rejection of claims 40 and 41.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 40 and 41
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sato is
affirmed. The decision of the examiner to reject claims 14-20,
29, 31-35, 38, 39, 42-53, 60-66 and 69-75 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Sato is reversed.
Appeal No. 2003-0548
Application No. 09/370,599
Page 10
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
BRADLEY R. GARRIS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHUNG K. PAK ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
PETER F. KRATZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2003-0548
Application No. 09/370,599
Page 11
APPLIED MATERIAL, INC.
2881 SCOTT BLVD M/S 2061
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050