Ex Parte Ray et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 30, 2019

14978120 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/978,120 12/22/2015
29393 7590 05/02/2019
Eschweiler & Potashnik, LLC
Rosetta Center
629 Euclid Ave., Suite 1000
Cleveland, OH 44114
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
AndyM. Ray
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.
EATNP310USA 7224
EXAMINER
SMITH, DAVIDE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2881
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2019 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):
docketing@eschweilerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDY M. RAY, EDWARD C. EISNER,
and BO H. VANDERBERG
Appeal2018-005543
Application 14/978,120
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
SUMMARY
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Axcelis Technologies, Inc., which, according
to the Appeal Brief, is also the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2018-005543
Application 14/978,120
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Appellant describes the invention as relating to a "dosimetry system
method for expediently determining an ion beam current profile." Spec.
1:13-14. Dosimetry is defined as "[t]he measurement of ions implanted in a
[semiconductor] wafer or workpiece." Id. at 1:25-26. The invention seeks
to improve the speed of such dosimetry measurements by utilizing an ion
beam scanning speed greater than the speed utilized during actual
implementation. Id. at 2: 18-22; 3 :25-3: 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An ion implantation system for implanting ions into a
workpiece, comprising:
an ion source configured to generate an ion beam;
a mass analyzer configured to mass analyze the ion
beam;
a beam scanner configured to scan the ion beam
along a scan plane, therein defining a scanned ion beam,
wherein the beam scanner is further configured to scan the
ion beam at a first frequency and a second frequency,
wherein the first frequency is greater than the second
frequency;
an end station configured to receive the scanned ion
beam at a workpiece plane associated with the workpiece
when the beam scanner scans the ion beam at the second
frequency;
a beam profiling apparatus configured to translate
through the scanned ion beam along the scan plane when
the ion beam is scanned at the first frequency, wherein the
beam profiling apparatus is further configured to measure
2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action dated July 7, 2017
("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed January 19, 2018 ("Appeal Br."), the
Examiner's Answer dated March 7, 2018 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed
May 7, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2018-005543
Application 14/978,120
one or more properties of the scanned ion beam concurrent
with the translation; and
a controller configured [to] determine a profile of the
scanned ion beam when the ion beam is scanned at the
second frequency based, at least in part, on the one or more
properties of the scanned ion beam when the ion beam is
scanned at the first frequency.
Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.).
To better illustrate the elements of the claimed system, Figure 1 from
the Drawings filed December 22, 2015, is reproduced below.
FIG. 1
3
Appeal2018-005543
Application 14/978,120
Figure 1 illustrates an exemplary ion implantation system. Spec. 8:25-27.
Figure 1 illustrates, for example, the relative locations of ion beam 112, ion
beam scanning mechanism 122 (which could be an electrostatic or
electromagnetic scanner), workpiece 120, and beam profiling apparatus 128
(which could be a Faraday cup 136). Id. at 8:25-11: 1.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Glavish
Farley
Olson et al.
("O Ison")
Murrell et al.
("Murrell")
us 5,132,544
US 6,297,510 Bl
US 2002/0134948 Al
US 2005/0191409 Al
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us on appeal:
July 21, 1992
Oct. 2, 2001
Sept. 26, 2002
Sept. 1, 2005
Rejection 1. Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14--16, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Olson. Ans. 2.
Rejection 2. Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Olson in view of Farley. Id. at 7.
Rejection 3. Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Olson in view of Glavish. Id. at 8.
Rejection 4. Claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Olson in view of Murrell. Id. at 9.
4
Appeal2018-005543
Application 14/978,120
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential),
cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[I]t
has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify the
alleged error in the examiner's rejections.").
Appellant presents separate arguments with respect to three groups of
claims: (i) claims 1, 9, and 16 (Appeal Br. 5-14), (ii) claims 3, 4, 14, and 15
(Appeal Br. 14--15), and (iii) claim 7 (Appeal Br. 15). Appellant does not
present substantively separate arguments with respect to the Examiner's
second, third, and fourth rejections (applying to claims 6, 13, and 17). Id. at
16. Also, while Appellant emphasizes recitations of claims 9 and 16,
Appellant does not make any substantively distinct arguments with respect
to those claims. Rather, Appellant argues claims 9 and 16 in a group with
claim 1. We therefore, consistent with the provisions of 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013), limit our discussion to claim 1, claims 3, 4, 14, and
15, and claim 7. All other claims on appeal stand or fall with claim 1.
Claim 1. The Examiner rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Olson. Ans. 2. The Examiner finds, for example, that
Olson teaches an ion source, a mass analyzer for analyzing an ion beam, a
beam scanner configured to scan the beam at a first and second frequency,
an end station configured to receive the scanned ion beam at the workpiece
plane, a beam profiling apparatus (Faraday beam profiler 90), and a
controller configured to determine a profile of a scanned ion beam when
scanned at a second frequency based, at least in part, on the one or more
5
Appeal2018-005543
Application 14/978,120
properties of the scanned ion beam when the beam is scanned at the first
frequency. Id. at 2-3 ( citing Olson). The Examiner finds that Olson does
not explicitly teach that the first frequency is greater than the second
frequency. Id. at 3. The Examiner, however, determines that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the second frequency
could be adjusted to lower than the first frequency "when the initial speed is
too fast to produce a desired ion implementation profile." Id.
Appellant's primary argument is that Olson does not teach or suggest
scanning the ion beam at a first frequency and a second frequency. Appeal
Br. 5. Appellant argues that Olson instead merely teaches an initial scan
speed and subsequent scan speed correction. Id. The Examiner, in contrast,
finds that Olson changing speed in this context is equivalent to changing
scanning frequency. Ans. 9-10. The preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner's position.
We begin by assessing what "frequency" means in the context of
claim 1. Appellant's Specification explains that a dose uniformity
measurement is typically made with a traveling slit faraday cup. Spec. 3: 17-
18. Around 300 different spatial points must be integrated over several
profiles. Id. at 3 :20-21. The Specification explains that low frequency
measurements (for example, measurements at 1 Hz ( one cycle per second))
would take 300 seconds to measure 300 points. Id. at 3:21-26. The
Specification further explains, in the context of prior art processes, that the
timing of the Faraday cup measurements directly relate to the frequency the
ion beam is scanned during implementation. Id. at 2: 10-13 ("[T]he Faraday
cup is typically translated or scanned through the ion beam while the ion
beam is electrostatically scanned at the same frequency as utilized during
6
Appeal2018-005543
Application 14/978,120
implementation into a workpiece."). In view of this context and in view of
the recitations of claim 1, claim 1 's "frequency" recitation refers to the
frequency of the scanner. As explained by the Specification in the context
of known art, the frequency of the scanner, in tum, corresponds to the
frequency of Faraday cup profile measurements. Spec. 2:6-15.
With this understanding of "frequency" in mind, we tum to Olson's
teachings. Appellant does not dispute that the Olson apparatus, like the
apparatus of claim 1, includes a scanner and a profile apparatus (a Faraday
cup). Ans. 2-3; Olson ,r,r 23, 26, and Fig. 1. Olson describes its process for
adjusting "scan speed" to ultimately obtain a corrected beam profile in some
detail. Olson ,r,r 37--42. In particular, Olson explains that an initial scan
speed is used which may "correspond[] to a linear ramp voltage waveform."
Id. ,r 39. The beam profiler 90 then measures "values" (plural) to provide a
scanned beam profile. Id. If the scanned beam profile does not meet a
desired uniformity specification, a scan speed correction is determined. Id.
,r,r 40--41. The scan speed correction is used to calculate a corrected scan
speed and ultimately obtain a corrected beam profile. Id. ,r,r 41--42.
Based on the preponderance of the evidence before us, we find that a
person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that both
Olson's scanning and Olson's profiling measuring processes require
repetition. See Olson ,r,r 23 (referring to "scan voltage waveform"), 39
(indicating that the initial speed corresponds to a waveform and indicating
that the profiler must measure multiple values), Fig. 4 (illustrating as So(x)
an initial scanned beam profile). Olson's teachings in this regard are
consistent with the Specification's teachings that, in prior art methodologies,
multiple Faraday cup profile measurements are required and that such
7
Appeal2018-005543
Application 14/978,120
measurements are "typically ... at the same frequency as utilized during
implementation into a workpiece." Spec. 2:6-15. Because Olson teaches
measurement and scan repetition, increasing the speed of these actions (i.e.,
decreasing the amount of time needed for one cycle) necessarily increases
the frequency ( cycles per second) because one is, mathematically, the
inverse of the other. Ans. 9-10.
Appellant argues that speed and frequency are not the same because if
speeds may be variable for a process while frequency remains constant.
Appeal Br. 6. Appellant's examples, however, both illustrate an average
speed of 4 (Scan A having a constant speed of 4; Scan B having a speed of 5
half of the time and a speed of 3 half of the time). Olson, however, teaches
speed correction without indicating that it is concerned with average speed
(or, equivalently, average frequency) remaining constant. Ans. 10. Rather,
Olson is best understood as teaching that speed is adjusted however
necessary to reach a desired scanned beam profile. Olson ,r 41--42. If
average speed of a repetitive action changes, frequency necessarily changes
as well. Ans. 9-10. Accordingly, Appellant's argument that Olson does not
teach a first and second frequency is unpersuasive.
Appellant also argues that Olson does not teach or suggest "a
controller configured to determine a profile of the scanned ion beam when
the ion beam is scanned at the second frequency based, at least in part, on
the one or more properties of the scanned ion beam when the ion beam is
scanned at the first frequency." Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis omitted). This
argument is unpersuasive because the Olson system includes "controller 94
[which] includes a general purpose computer that is programmed for
controlling the setup and operation of the implanter." Olson ,r 27; Ans. 3.
8
Appeal2018-005543
Application 14/978,120
Part of controlling the system involves using the profiler 90 to measure the
corrected beam profile. Olson ,r 42. The corrected beam profile, in tum, is
generated at a corrected scan speed (i.e., equivalent to a second frequency)
which was corrected by assessing the initial scanned beam profile. Id.
,r,r 40-42. The controller is thus configured to, when the ion beam is
scanned at the second speed (i.e., second frequency), determine a profile,
and that profile is based on adjustments made due to imperfections in the
initial scanned beam profile made at the initial speed (i.e., first frequency).
Ans. 10.
Appellant also argues that Olson teaches scan speed correction based
on an unscanned beam. Appeal Br. 8-9. This argument is similarly
unpersuasive. Appellant emphasizes that Claim 1 recites, for example, "[a]
beam profiling apparatus configured to translate through the scanned ion
beam." Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis omitted). Olson, however, likewise teaches
that its Olson beam profiler 90 is downstream of the beam scanner 20.
Olson Fig. 1, 26:1--4; see also Ans. 2-3. Olson thus teaches profiling the
scanned beam. Olson ,r 40 ("[A] determination is made as to whether the
initial scanned beam profile So(x) meets a uniformity specification.").
Moreover, Olson's corrected profile is determined by the corrected speed
(corresponding to second frequency) which is based, in part, on the initial
speed (corresponding to a first frequency). Ans. 10. The initial speed, in the
parlance of claim 1, is "one ... propert[y] of the scanned ion beam when the
ion beam is scanned at the first frequency." Id. at 5.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner erred in determining that
Olson's teachings regarding speed adjustment necessarily correspond to
frequency as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 9-14. These arguments are
9
Appeal2018-005543
Application 14/978,120
unpersuasive for the reasons explained above. We again emphasize that a
reasonable reading of Olson by a person skilled in the art is that, for any one
ion beam measurement, one speed is utilized repeatedly. Under this
circumstance, speed and frequency are mathematically inseparable. Ans.
10-11.
Because Appellant's arguments regarding the independent claims do
not identify reversible error, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1,
2, 5, 6, 8-13, and 16-20.
Claims 3, 4, 14, and 15. Appellant argues claims 3, 4, 14, and 15
separately. Appeal Br. 14--15. Claim 3 recites "[t]he ion implantation
system of claim 1, wherein the first frequency is at least twice the second
frequency." Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). Claim 4 recites "[t]he ion
implantation system of claim 1, wherein the first frequency is at least one
order of magnitude greater than the second frequency." Id. Claims 14 and
15 are similar but depend from method claim 9. Id. at 20. In particular,
Appellant argues that Olson does not teach or provide motivation for
doubling or providing a ten-fold change in frequency. Appeal Br. 14--15.
Appellant argues that Olson instead appears to teach minor changes in speed
as shown in Olson Figure 4.
The Examiner's obviousness determination is based on a routine
optimization rationale. The Examiner explains: "one of ordinary skill in the
art could adjust the scan correction so that it is any desired value for
achieving a desired profile. This is a matter of routine optimization of the
beam profile by adjusting the scanning speed with no unexpected result."
Ans. 11.
10
Appeal2018-005543
Application 14/978,120
On this record, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not
sufficiently established that a person of skill in the art would have
contemplated making the relatively extreme adjustments to speed recited by
claims 3, 4, 14, and 15. Reply Br. 6-7. Rather, Olson is silent as to the
degree to which speed would be adjusted (id.), and the record is unclear as to
whether or not a person of skill in the art would have contemplated the
relatively large speed adjustments recited by these claims within Olson's
context. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims
3, 4, 14, and 15.
Claim 7. Appellant also argues claim 7 separately. Appeal Br. 15.
Claim 7 recites "[ t ]he ion implementation system of claim 1, wherein the
controller is further configured to tune the ion beam based on the one or
more properties of the ion beam that are measured at the first frequency and
a desired one or more properties of the ion beam when the ion beam is
scanned at the second frequency." Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). In
particular, Appellant argues that Olson's correcting the speed of the scanner
does not constitute tuning of the ion beam. Id.
In response, the Examiner states that "changing the ion beam scan
speed constitutes tuning the ion beam based on properties of the ion beam at
the first frequency (i.e., the beam profile) and a desired one or more
properties of the ion beam when the ion beam is scanned at the second
frequency (i.e., the desired beam profile."). Ans. 11.
The preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's position.
The Specification indicates that the ion beam can be tuned "via a control of
one or more of the ion source, the mass analyzer, and the beam scanner."
Spec. 7: 1-3 (emphasis omitted). We therefore agree with the Examiner that
11
Appeal2018-005543
Application 14/978,120
"changing the ion beam scan speed constitutes tuning the ion beam." Ans.
11; compare to Reply Br. 7 (arguing that Olson fails to teach any sort of
tuning of the ion beam). Also, as explained above with regard to claim 1,
Olson teaches adjusting the speed of the beam scanner based on the scanner
speed ( corresponding to frequency) at the first speed ( corresponding to the
first frequency). Adjustments are made via use of a "desired profile
correction" if the initial scanned beam profile does not meet "a uniformity
specification." Olson ,r,r 40-41. The tuning (adjustment to beam scanner
speed which also, mathematically, amounts to an adjustment to frequency)
thus occurs based on the first speed but also based on failure to meet a
desired profile. Accordingly, Appellant's argument regarding claim 7 fails
to identify reversible error, and we sustain the rejection of claim 7.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of
claims 1, 2, 5-13, and 16-20. We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims
3, 4, 14, and 15.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
12