Ex Parte Stanton

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 12, 2015

11601524 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
11/601,524 11/17/2006 Gareth David Stanton M05B192 (E223.12-0009) 6842
27367 7590 03/12/2015
WESTMAN CHAMPLIN & KOEHLER, P.A.
SUITE 1400
900 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
CHANDRA, SATISH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/12/2015 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 GARETH DAVID STANTON
1

________________

Appeal 2013-001981
Application 11/601,524
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, PETER F. KRATZ, and MARK NAGUMO,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Gareth David Stanton (“Stanton”) timely appeals
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
2
of claims 1–4 and 7–14.
3

We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We reverse.

1
The real party in interest is listed as Edwards Limited. (Appeal Brief,
filed 14 May 2012 (“Br.”), 3.)
2
Office action mailed 17 August 2011 (“Final Rejection”; cited as “FR”).
3
Claims 15–25 have been withdrawn from consideration by the Examiner
(FR 1, ¶ 5a; Br. 3) and are not before us.
Appeal 2013-001981
Application 11/601,524

2
OPINION
A. Introduction
4

The subject matter on appeal relates to a chemical vapor deposition
apparatus.
Claim 1 is representative of the dispositive issues and reads:
Chemical vapour deposition apparatus comprising:
a process chambers [sic, chamber];
a bubbler for supplying a volatile precursor to the
chamber;
a vacuum pump for drawing an exhaust gas from the
process chambers [sic, chamber];
an abatement device disposed downstream of the vacuum
pump for treating the exhaust gas;
a bypass line for conveying the precursor from the bubbler
to the abatement device,
the bypass line bypassing both the process chamber and
the vacuum pump that is disposed upstream of the
abatement device,
a holding vessel fluidly connected between the bubbler and
the abatement device via the bypass line for receiving the
precursor from the bubbler, wherein
the holding vessel is not in fluid connection with the
process chamber;
a heater for vaporizing the precursor in the holding vessel;
and
a control system for controlling a rate at which the
precursor is supplied from the holding vessel to the
abatement device.

4
Application 11/601,524, Chemical vapour deposition apparatus,
filed 17 November 2006, claiming the benefit of an application filed in the
UK on 24 November 2005. We cite the Sp4ecification as “Spec.”
Appeal 2013-001981
Application 11/601,524

3
(Claims App., Br. 11; some indentation, paragraphing, and emphasis added.)
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
5

A. Claims 1, 2, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Kikkawa,
6
Yang,
7

Thakur,
8
and Lindfors.
9

A1. Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Kikkawa, Yang, Thakur,
Lindfors, and Barbee.
10

A2. Claims 12–14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Kikkawa, Yang, Thakur,
Lindfors, and Kim.
11

B. Claims 1, 2, and 7–11 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of
Kikkawa, Elliot,
12
Thakur, and Lindfors.

5
Examiner’s Answer mailed 2 August 2012 (“Ans.”).
6
Toshihide Kikkawa et al., Apparatus for generating raw material gas used
in apparatus for growing thin film, U.S. Patent No. 5,460,654 (1995).
7
Chang-Jip Yang et al., Apparatus and method for manufacturing a
semiconductor device having hemispherical grains, U.S. Patent Application
Publication 2004/0094091 A1 (2004).
8
Randhir Thakur et al., Substrate processing apparatus using a batch
processing chamber, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0156979 A1
(2006), based on an application filed 22 November 2005.
9
Sven Lindfors, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0079286 A1
(2004)
10
Steven G. Barbee et al., U.S. Patent 4,717,596 (1988).
11
Jeong-Yun Kim, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0061245 A1
(2005).
12
David J. Elliott et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication
2005/0279453 A1 (2005).
Appeal 2013-001981
Application 11/601,524

4
B1. Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Kikkawa, Elliot, Thakur,
Lindfors, and Barbee.
B2. Claims 12–14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Kikkawa, Elliot, Thakur,
Lindfors, and Kim.
B. Discussion
Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record.
Briefly, referring to Thakur Fig. 10A, which is reproduced on the
following page, the Examiner finds that Thakur’s ampoule 520 corresponds
to the bubbler; that the scrubber corresponds to the abatement device, and
that recirculation collection vessel 561 corresponds to the holding vessel
recited in claim 1.
13
The Examiner finds further that “[t]he collection vessel
is disposed between the scrubber (not shown but connected via a purge
valve 537, Para 0123) and the precursor tank 520.” (FR 4, ll. 6–8.)
The critical issue in this appeal is whether, as Stanton urges (Br. 6–7),
the Examiner erred harmfully in finding that collection vessel 561 is “fluidly
connected between the bubbler and the abatement device via the bypass line
for receiving the precursor from the bubbler,” as required by claim 1.

13
Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, labels to elements shown in figures
are presented in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original
document.
Appeal 2013-001981
Application 11/601,524

5
{Thakur Fig. 10A (modified) is shown below}

{Fig. 10A shows the precursor delivery system 501A of a chemical vapor
deposition apparatus. The connections of collection vessel 561 to
precursor tank 520 and the scrubber are critical}
Thakur explains that “precursor recirculation system 560 is added to
the gas source 501 to reduce or eliminate the need to purge the excess
precursor gas that is generated during the continuous flow of the liquid
precursor through the vaporizer 530.” (Thakur 15 [0124].) When a desired
mass of precursor has been delivered to vessel 543 (on the left; precursor is
delivered from vessel 543 to substrates W via line 505A), recirculation
vessel 561 is isolated by closing recirculation outlet valve 566 and by
closing isolation valve 535, and by opening recirculation inlet valve 567.
Appeal 2013-001981
Application 11/601,524

6
(Id.) The excess precursor is collected in vessel 561 and can be delivered to
vaporizer 530 (id. at [0125], [0126]) or back to ampoule 520 (id. at [0127]).
The Examiner has not directed our attention to any credible disclosure
in Thakur that places recirculation vessel 561 between ampoule 520 and the
scrubber, such that the precursor material (that Thakur seeks to avoid
dumping by providing vessel 561) can be sent to the scrubber to be dumped.
The Examiner’s references to paragraph [0123] (e.g., Ans. 5, 1st full par.;
id. at para. bridging 12–13) are misdirected, as the dumping of excess
precursor gas is accomplished by isolating vessel 543 from vaporizer 530,
and then purging the excess gas to the scrubber via purge valve 537. But
vessel 543 is fluidly connected to the processing chamber, and hence it
cannot be the “holding vessel” recited in the claims because the holding
vessel recited in the claims “is not in fluid connection with the process
chamber.”
The Examiner does not make findings regarding the remaining
references or the remaining rejected claims that cure this defect.
We conclude that Stanton has demonstrated harmful error in the
appealed rejections.
C. Order
We reverse the rejection of claims 1–4 and 7–14.
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
sl