Ex Parte Sakama

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 15, 2016

11205084 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111205,084 08/17/2005
31780 7590 06/15/2016
Robinson Intellectual Property Law Office, P,C,
3975 Fair Ridge Drive
Suite 20 North
Fairfax, VA 22033
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mitsunori Sakama
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.
0756-7567 4299
EXAMINER
PADGETT, MARIANNE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1717
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/15/2016 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 MITSUNORI SAKAMA
Appeal2014-004404
Application 11/205,084
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, 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 20, 21, 26, 27, 33, 34, and 39--44. We have
jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on June 7, 2016.2
We REVERSE.
1 According to the Appellant, the real party in interest is Semiconductor
Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 3.
2 A written transcript of the oral hearing will be entered into the record when
the transcript is made available.
Appeal2014-004404
Application 11/205,084
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant describes the present invention as relating to forming a thin
film with even thickness by a plasma chemical vapor deposition (CVD)
method. Spec. 1, 5. The technique may be used to fabricate a thin silicon
film for a thin film transistor (TFT) or solar cell. Id. at 1. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
20. A method for forming a film comprising the steps of:
supplying a reactive gas into a chamber at a first flow rate;
supplying radio frequency energy having a first output in
the chamber to generate plasma;
forming a film over a substrate in the chamber by
decomposing the reactive gas in the plasma using the radio
frequency energy;
exchanging the reactive gas in the chamber for a discharge
gas by decreasing the reactive gas from the first flow rate to zero,
and increasing the discharge gas from zero to the first flow rate;
lowering the radio frequency energy from the first output
to a second output;
keeping the radio frequency energy at the second output,
wherein the discharge gas is maintained at the first flow rate;
lowering the radio frequency energy from the second
output to a third output;
keeping the radio frequency energy at the third output,
wherein the discharge gas is maintained at the first flow rate;
lowering the radio frequency energy from the third output
to zero; and
stopping the discharge gas after lowering the radio
frequency energy to zero.
Appeal Br. 3 14 (Claims App'x).
3 In this decision, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed May, 22, 2013
("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed Oct. 21, 2013 ("Appeal Br."), the
2
Appeal2014-004404
Application 11/205,084
REFERENCES
The Examiner relied upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Kozuka
Gupta et al
(hereinafter "Gupta '796")
Yamazaki et al.
(hereinafter "Yamazaki ' 14 7")
Gupta et al.
(hereinafter "Gupta '843")
Yamazaki et al.
us 5,420,044
us 5,456, 796
us 6,281,147
us 6,289,843
us 6,951,828
May 30, 1995
Oct. 10, 1995
Aug.28,2001
Sept. 18, 2001
Oct. 4, 2005
(hereinafter "Yamazaki '828)
Savas
Robertson et al.
EP 0 419 930 A2 Apr. 3, 1991
EP 0 630 989 A2 Dec. 28, 1994
(hereinafter "Robertson")
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Rejection 1. Claims 20, 21, 26, 27, 33, 34, and 39--44 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kozuka in view of Gupta '843, Savas,
and Robertson and optionally further considering Gupta '796.
Rejection 2. Claims 20, 21, 26, 27, 33, 34, and 39--44 under the
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1-27 or claims 1---63 of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,951,828 B2 or 6,281,147
Bl, respectively in view of Savras, further considering Kozuka and/or Gupta
'843.
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejects all claims on appeal as obvious
over Kozuka in view of Gupta '843, Savas, Robertson, and optionally Gupta
Examiner's Answer mailed Dec. 27, 2013 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief
filed Feb. 19, 2014 ("Reply Br.").
3
Appeal2014-004404
Application 11/205,084
'796. Each independent claim requires that, while discharge gas flow is
maintained at a constant "first flow rate," the radio frequency energy be
lowered, be kept for some period of time at the lower non-zero value, be
lowered again, be kept for some period of time at this lower still non-zero
value, and finally be lowered to zero. Appellant argues that the combined
references do not teach or suggest the recited three step energy lowering.
See, e.g., Appeal Br. 8.
The Examiner cites five references-Kozuka, Gupta '843, Savas,
Robertson, and Gupta '796---to establish that a person of skill in the art
would understand that plasma energy levels could be varied during times of
the deposition process where substrate is not being deposited. Ans. 2-7.
The Examiner states, however, that the five references in combination do
"not specifically suggest three ramp down steps for the RF energy, as
presently claimed." Id. at 6.
Instead, Kozuka, for example, states that plasma excitation may be
"continuously varying" during Kozuka's transfer of substrate from one film-
forming chamber to another. Kozuka 4:6-37. Kozuka does not teach step-
wise ramp down, however. Final Act. 3. Robertson teaches a two-step
energy ramp up during processing (Ans. 5), but on the present record, a
preponderance of evidence does not establish that considerations for process
ramp up are necessarily the same for ramp down.
We are not convinced by a preponderance of the evidence before us
that arriving at a three step ramp down would be merely "a matter of
optimizing via routine experimentation." Ans. 6. Similarly, we are not
convinced based upon the present record that the prior art teaches step-wise
ramp down or adjustment of steps when ramping down such that the three
step ramp down is mere optimization of a result effective variable. Id. at 7.
4
Appeal2014-004404
Application 11/205,084
We, therefore do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 2 0, 2 6, or 3 3. We also reverse the rejection of claims 21, 2 7, 3 4, and
39--44 because those claims depend from the independent claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims
20, 21, 26, 27, 33, 34, and 39--44.
REVERSED
5