11467449 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 30, 2011)

Ex Parte Ni et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 30, 2011

11467449 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 30, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/467,449 08/25/2006 Tuqiang Ni 2328-049B 3565 22429 7590 08/31/2011 LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP 1700 DIAGONAL ROAD SUITE 300 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 EXAMINER ALEJANDRO MULERO, LUZ L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1716 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/31/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ________________ Ex parte TUQIANG NI, WENLI COLLISON, DAVID HEMKER, and LUMIN LI ________________ Appeal 2010-006188 Application 11/467,449 Technology Center 1700 ________________ Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-006188 Application 11/467,449 2 This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 through 6, 15 through 24, and 40 through 43. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6. We REVERSE. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The subject matter on appeal is directed to a vacuum plasma processor. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A vacuum plasma processor for processing workpieces comprising a vacuum chamber having an inlet for supplying gas to the chamber; the chamber including an electrode arrangement, the electrode arrangement including a semiconductor member; the semiconductor member being selectively connected to an RF plasma excitation source for causing the semiconductor member to ionize gas in the chamber to a plasma, a coil outside the chamber for generating an electromagnetic field for ionizing gas in the chamber to a plasma, a non-magnetic metal arrangement interposed between the coil and the semiconductor member; the chamber, coil, non- magnetic metal arrangement and semiconductor member being positioned and arranged for preventing substantial electric field components of the electromagnetic field from being incident on the semiconductor member while enabling substantial electric and magnetic field components from the coil to be incident on the gas for ionizing the gas. Appeal 2010-006188 Application 11/467,449 3 The Examiner maintains the following rejections: (1) claims 1-6, 17-24, and 40-43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ishii (US 5,685,942, issued Nov. 11, 1997), Collins (US 6,077,384, issued Jun. 20, 2000), and Baldwin (WO 99/34399, published Jul. 8, 1999); and (2) claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ishii, Collins, and Baldwin, and further in view of Koshimizu (US 6,101,970, issued Aug. 15, 2000). ISSUE Did Appellants establish that the Examiner reversibly erred in determining that the applied prior art references would have rendered obvious a vacuum plasma processor having a coil, non-magnetic metal arrangement, and semiconductor member positioned and arranged to enable substantial electric and magnetic field components from the coil to be incident on the gas for ionizing the gas as required by claim 1 within the meaning of § 103? We decide this issue in the affirmative. PRINCIPLE OF LAW “[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Appeal 2010-006188 Application 11/467,449 4 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION Appellants argue that Ishii does not teach that its vacuum plasma processor has a coil, non-magnetic metal arrangement, and semiconductor member positioned and arranged to enable substantial electric and magnetic field components from the coil to be incident on the gas for ionizing the gas as required by claim 1. (App. Br. 8 and 9 and Reply Br. 1 and 2). We agree. The Examiner finds that Ishii teaches the disputed claim feature since Ishii’s Figures 6A and 6B illustrate openings or slots in electrostatic shield 107. (Ans. 5, 9, and 10). In that regard, according to the Examiner, these openings or slots are capable of permitting both electric and magnetic field components to travel from the coil to the gas in the chamber. Id. However, as correctly pointed out by Appellants at pages 1 and 2 of the Reply Brief, Ishii expressly teaches that its electrostatic shield 107 shields the electric field generated by coil 106 to prevent sputtering of dielectric plate 104. (Ishii, col. 8, l. 64 to col. 9, l. 11). Thus, because the Examiner fails to direct us to any credible evidence or provide any persuasive explanation to support the allegation that Ishii teaches a coil, non-magnetic metal arrangement and semiconductor member being positioned and arranged to enable substantial electric and magnetic field components from the coil to be incident on the gas for ionizing the gas as required by claim 1, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection (1). REJECTION (2) The Examiner relies on the same factual findings and determinations discussed above with regard to rejection (2). The Examiner does not provide any additional findings or explanation regarding how the additional Appeal 2010-006188 Application 11/467,449 5 reference (i.e., Koshimizu) would have satisfied the disputed claim feature. (Ans. 8 and 9). Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection (2). ORDER The Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED bar