Ex Parte NG et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 12, 2003

09252845 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 12, 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written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 CHE-HOO NG,
EMI ISHIDA,
JAIME M. REYES,
JINNING LIU,
and
SANDEEP MEHTA
_____________
Appeal No. 2002-1169
Application No. 09/252,845
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, FLEMING, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims
1 through 22. After submission of the brief, the examiner found
claim 14 to be allowable, but for its dependency from a rejected
base claim (answer, page 5). Accordingly, claims 1 through
13 and 15 through 22 remain before us on appeal.
Appeal No. 2002-1169
Application No. 09/252,845
2
The disclosed invention relates to an ion source in an ion
implantation system. A source of electrical power in the ion
source is connectable to an electron source to cause the electron
source to create charged ions in a source gas to form a charged
plasma and to bias the electron source to cause cleansing of a
non-dopant component of the source gas by inert gas ion
sputtering of the electron source.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. For an ion implantation system, an ion source
comprising:
a gas source for providing a source gas containing an
ion implantation dopant gas and an inert gas;
an electron source surroundable by said source gas and
subject to coating by a non-dopant component of
said source gas;
a source of electrical power connectable to said
electron source to cause said electron source to
create charged ions in said source gas to form a
charged plasma and to bias said electron source to
cause cleansing of said non-dopant component of
said source gas by inert gas ion sputtering of
said electron source; and
an ion extraction system for controlling charged ions
from said charged plasma.
Appeal No. 2002-1169
Application No. 09/252,845
1 The statement of the rejection (answer, pages 3 and 4)
should have included claims 21 and 22 among the claims found to
be anticipated by Gwinn.
3
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Bright et al. (Bright) 5,262,652 Nov. 16, 1993
Gwinn 5,962,858 Oct. 5, 1999
(filed Jul. 10, 1997)
Claims 1, 3 through 6, 11, 13, 15, 16, 21 and 221 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Gwinn.
Claims 2, 7 through 10, 12 and 17 through 20 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gwinn in view
of Bright.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 17 and 20)
and the answer (paper number 18) for the respective positions of
the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 3
through 6, 11, 13, 15, 16, 21 and 22, and the obviousness
rejection of claims 2, 7 through 10, 12 and 17 through 20.
Among the examiner’s findings (answer, page 4) is the
statement that “[s]ince the Gwinn apparatus is identical to the
apparatus disclosed in the instant application, some of the noble
Appeal No. 2002-1169
Application No. 09/252,845
4
gas ions in the plasma produced by the Gwinn apparatus would
inherently clean the electron source along with the arc chamber
walls in exactly the same way that occurs in the apparatus
claimed in the instant application.”
In response, appellants argue (brief, pages 3 and 4) that:
Gwinn does not bias the electron source to cause
cleansing, as stated in the Gwinn Summary, column 2,
lines 8-18:
“ . . . provides for an ion implantation system
that employs an ion source for ionizing and implanting
into a substrate a noble diluent gas and a particular
dopant gas. The noble diluent gas of the present
invention preferably does not react with the dopant
gas, or with dopant residue which coats the walls of
the ionization chamber of the ion source, thus allowing
the ion source to be used for accurate, stable low dose
implants. Additionally, the noble diluent gas does not
introduce conductivity altering ions, or impurities,
into the substrate S . . . . ”
It is respectfully submitted that the above makes
it evident that the Gwinn system does not bias for
cleansing of either the Gwinn walls or the Gwinn
electrode and teaches away from cleansing because
cleansing would introduce impurities into the
substrate, which is to be implanted.
The above is further emphasized in Gwinn column 5,
lines 41-49 . . . .
Based upon the referenced disclosure in Gwinn, appellants argue
(brief, page 5) that “Gwinn does not expressly or inherently
disclose Appellants’ claimed invention.” In response to the
examiner’s citation of a dictionary definition for the term
Appeal No. 2002-1169
Application No. 09/252,845
5
“sputter” (answer, page 6), appellants argue (reply brief, page
2) that “the claimed limitation is for a source biased to cause
cleansing and not merely to removing or depositing material by
the process of sputtering.”
To establish inherency, the record (i.e., the extrinsic
evidence) “must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is
necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and
that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill.” In
re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed.
Cir. 1999). To date, none of the examiner’s findings
demonstrates that the source of electrical power in Gwinn must of
necessity perform the claimed “cleansing.” As indicated supra,
Gwinn expressly states that such “cleansing” will not be
performed in his ion implantation system. Thus, the 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection of claims 1, 3 through 6, 11, 13, 15, 16, 21
and 22 is reversed.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 2, 7 through 10,
12 and 17 through 20 is reversed because the teachings of Bright
fail to cure the noted shortcoming in the teachings of Gwinn.
Appeal No. 2002-1169
Application No. 09/252,845
6
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 3 through
6, 11, 13, 15, 16, 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is
reversed, and the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 2,
7 through 10, 12 and 17 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(e) is
reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH:hh
Appeal No. 2002-1169
Application No. 09/252,845
7
THE LAW OFFICES OF MIKIO ISHIMARU
1110 SUNNYVALE-SARATOGA RD.
STE. A1
SUNNYVALE, CA 94087