Ex Parte Nagorny et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

13325455 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/325,455 12/14/2011
22827 7590 09/29/2016
DORITY & MANNING, P.A.
POST OFFICE BOX 1449
GREENVILLE, SC 29602-1449
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Vladimir Nagorny
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.
AGX-202 1027
EXAMINER
BERGNER, ERIN FLANAGAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1713
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VLADIMIR NAGORNY, DONGSOO LEE, and
ANDREAS KADA V ANICH
Appeal2015-003363
Application 13/325,455
Technology Center 1700
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1--4 and 21. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
Appeal2015-003363
Application 13/325,455
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants' subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below (text in bold for emphasis):
1. A method of processing a substrate in a plasma
processing apparatus, the plasma processing apparatus
comprising a processing chamber having an interior operable to
receive a process gas, a substrate holder operable to hold a
substrate, a first inductive element disposed over the process
chamber interior, and a second inductive element disposed over
the process chamber interior, the first and second inductive
element each configured to inductively generate a plasma in the
process chamber interior, the method comprising:
placing a substrate on the substrate holder within the
interior of the processing chamber of [sic] the processing
apparatus;
admitting a process gas into the interior of the processing
chamber;
energizing the first inductive element with
electromagnetic energy at a first RF frequency to generate
inductively a plasma in the interior of the process chamber;
energizing the second inductive element with
electromagnetic energy at a second RF frequency to generate
inductively a plasma in the interior of the processing chamber;
selecting the first RF frequency to be sufficiently
different from the second RF frequency to reduce
interference between the first inductive element and the
second inductive element through tile inductively coupled
plasma; and
processing the substrate in the plasma.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
2
Appeal2015-003363
Application 13/325,455
Okumura US 2004/0045669 Al ivfar. 11, 2004
Naoki Yamada et al., Model for a large area multi-frequency multiplanar
coil inductively coupled plasma source, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 14(5), pp.
2859-2870 (1996) (hereafter "Yamada").
J. Hopwood, Planar RF induction plasma coupling efficiency, Plasma
Sources Sci. Technol. 3, pp. 460-464 (1994) (hereafter "Hopwood").
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 3, and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Yamada as evidenced by Hopwood.
2. Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yamada as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and
further in view of Yamada, as evidenced by Okumura.
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1
The dispositive issue in this case is whether the applied art anticipates
the claimed subject matter particularly with regard to the recitation of
"selecting the first RF frequency to be sufficiently different from the second
RF frequency to reduce interference between the first inductive element and
the second inductive element through the inductively coupled plasma."
The Examiner's stated position for the rejection is set forth on pages
2-5 of the Answer (which we do not repeat herein).
Appellants argue that the frequencies of Yamada are not selected such
that the first RF frequency is sufficiently different from the second RF
3
Appeal2015-003363
Application 13/325,455
frequency to reduce interference between the first inductive element through
the inductively coupled plasma, for the reasons set forth on pages 4--11 of
the Appeal Brief.
In response, the Examiner states that the claim terms of "reduce" and
"sufficiently" are relative terms of degree, which the claim fails to make
clear what the initial level of degree is of the interference, prior to the
selection of the first and second RF frequencies to accomplish the reduction,
and what the level is of "sufficiently different". 1 Ans. 9-10. The Examiner
interprets the claim as meaning that the claimed reduction of interference
can be a reduction of any type of interference and any amount. Ans. 10.
The Examiner concludes that therefore, any plasma, driven by at least two
inductive coils, where the plasma is altered based on a change in frequency,
to modify the interactions of those frequencies in the plasma, for the benefit
or control of the plasma would read on "selecting the first RF frequency to
be sufficiently different from the second RF frequency to reduce
interference." Id.
However, we agree with Appellants' stated reply in the Reply Brief.
Appellants state that the claim language cannot be so broadly construed to
encompass selecting frequency for the express purpose of causing
interference as taught in Yamada. Reply Br. 2. Appellants explain that to
achieve a "beat effect," Yamada teaches that the frequencies of the inductive
coils are selected for the specific purpose of interfering with one another.
Reply Br. 2-3 (citing Yamada 2859, 2862). This would mean that no
reduction occurs in the interference; rather, interference is caused. On the
other hand, the language in claim 1 requires that the interference be reduced
1 There is no § 112, second paragraph, rejection in this appeal.
4
Appeal2015-003363
Application 13/325,455
(the amount to which it is reduced is not pertinent in resolving this issue in
this case). We appreciate the Examiner's position that modification of
interference is possible in Yamada. Ans. 3--4. However, it is an
unsupported presumption that any modification necessarily means a
reduction, and the Examiner has not pointed to evidence in the record that
indicates a reduction in fact occurs in Yamada.
As such, we reverse Rejection 1.
Rejections 2 and 3
The aforementioned deficiencies of Yamada are not addressed by the
Examiner in Rejections 2 and 3, and therefore these rejections are also
reversed.
DECISION
Each rejection is reversed.
ORDER
REVERSED
5