Ex Parte Rogelstad

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 22, 2002

08713882 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 22, 2002)

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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte TERRANCE R. ROGELSTAD
____________
Appeal No. 2000-2136
Application No. 08/713,882
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before McQUADE, NASE, and BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.
NASE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1 to 34,
which are all of the claims pending in this application.
We REVERSE.
Appeal No. 2000-2136
Application No. 08/713,882
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates generally to cooldown chambers for use in
integrated circuit fabrication processes (specification, p. 1). A copy of the claims under
appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellant's brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Weinberg 5,002,010 Mar. 26, 1991
Tepman et al. (Tepman) 5,186,718 Feb. 16, 1993
Claims 1 to 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Weinberg and Tepman.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 12, mailed May 4, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of
the rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 11, filed March 13, 2000) and reply brief
(Paper No. 13, filed July 10, 2000) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
Appeal No. 2000-2136
Application No. 08/713,882
Page 3
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. Upon evaluation of
all the evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the
examiner is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
the claims under appeal. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of
claims 1 to 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for this determination follows.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden
of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of obviousness is
established by presenting evidence that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed invention.
See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re
Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
The appellant argues that the applied prior art does not suggest the claimed
subject matter. We agree.
Appeal No. 2000-2136
Application No. 08/713,882
Page 4
All the claims under appeal require a cooldown chamber having a first cooling
member coupled to an inside wall of an enclosure; a second cooling member coupled
to a pedestal for receiving a substrate thereon, wherein the second cooling member
can be selectively positioned adjacent the first cooling member to form a cooling region
therebetween; and a gas source for providing gas to the cooling region. However,
these limitations are not suggested by the applied prior art. In that regard, while
Weinberg does teach a cooldown chamber having a first member (22) coupled to an
inside wall of an enclosure; a cooling member (24) coupled to a pedestal (40) for
receiving a substrate (16) thereon, wherein the cooling member can be selectively
positioned adjacent the first member to form a cooling region (30) therebetween; and a
gas source (64) for providing gas to the cooling region, Weinberg does not teach or
suggest that the first member be a cooling member. To supply this omission in the
teachings of the applied prior art, the examiner made determinations (answer, pages 3
and 7-12) that Weinberg's first member (22) is inherently a cooling member. We do not
agree. We find ourselves in agreement with the appellant's position (brief, pages 4-6;
reply brief, pages 1-2) that Weinberg's first member (22) is not a cooling member. In
our view, Weinberg's member (24) is a cooling member since it includes water jacket
(70) therein through which a coolant may be pumped. Similarly, it is our opinion that
Weinberg's member (22) is not a cooling member since it does not include any
Appeal No. 2000-2136
Application No. 08/713,882
Page 5
1 We have reviewed the patent to Tepman applied in the rejection but find nothing therein which
makes up for the deficiencies of Weinberg discussed above.
structure therein to provide cooling (e.g., a jacket through which a coolant may be
pumped).1
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1
to 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Appeal No. 2000-2136
Application No. 08/713,882
Page 6
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 to 34 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
JOHN P. McQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JEFFREY V. NASE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JENNIFER D. BAHR )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2000-2136
Application No. 08/713,882
Page 7
PATENT COUNSEL
APPLIED MATERIALS INC
P O BOX 450A
SANTA CLARA, CA 95052
JVN/jg