Ex Parte Strang

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 27, 2009

10466107 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 27, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ERIC J. STRANG
____________

Appeal 2008-6098
Application 10/466,107
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided:1 March 27, 2009
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHUNG K. PAK, and
CATHERINE Q. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting independent claims 1, 10, 21, and 28.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the Decided Date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-6098
Application 10/466,107

We REVERSE.
Statement of the Case
Appellant claims a gas injection system for a processing reactor (and a
processing reactor which includes such a gas injection system) which is said
to militate against a problem discovered by Appellant wherein a gas
compression wave created during initial start-up causes particulate material
to be displaced from surfaces of the gas injection system and transported to
the substrate work piece in the processing reactor (Br. para. bridging 2-3).
In one embodiment, the system comprises a principle gas feed line 50
connected to an inject plate 24 located above the substrate, a start-up line 60
connected to the substrate-containing chamber at a position not above the
substrate, and a controller 70 configured to redirect gas flow to the start-up
line 60 and restrict gas flow to the principle gas feed line 50 during a
predetermined start-up period of the processing reactor, and to redirect gas
flow to the principle gas feed line 50 after the predetermined start-up period
has ended (claim 1; figs. 1-2). In another embodiment, the system comprises
a first gas feed line 150 connected to an inject plate 124 and an acoustical
dampening device 154 provided within the first gas feed line 150 (claim 21;
fig. 3).
Representative claims 1 and 21 read as follows:
1. A gas injection system for a processing reactor, the
processing reactor including a mass flow controller and a vacuum chamber
with an inject plate configured to be located above a substrate, said gas
injection system comprising:
2 Although claims 1-15, 21-23, 28, and 29 stand rejected by the Examiner
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Appellant explicitly limits this appeal to only the
above noted independent claims (Br. 2). The other claims under rejection
(i.e., dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, 22, 23, and 29) have not been appealed.
2
Appeal 2008-6098
Application 10/466,107

a valve system having an inlet adapted to be connected to the mass
flow controller, a first outlet, and a second outlet;

a principle gas feed line connected to said first outlet of said valve
system, said principle gas feed line being adapted to be connected to the
inject plate; and

a start-up line connected to said second outlet of said valve system,
said start-up line having an orifice adapted to be connected to the vacuum
chamber at a position not above the substrate; and

a controller configured to control said valve system to redirect gas
flow to said start-up line and restrict gas flow to the principle gas feed line
during a predetermined start-up period of the processing reactor, and to
control said valve system to redirect gas flow to the principle gas feed line
after said predetermined start-up period has ended.

21. A gas injection system for a processing reactor, the processing
reactor including a mass flow controller and a vacuum chamber with an
inject plate configured to be located above a substrate, said gas injection
system comprising:

a valve having an inlet adapted to be connected to the mass flow
controller, and a first outlet;

a first gas feed line connected to said first outlet of said valve, said
first gas feed line being adapted to be connected to the inject plate; and

an acoustical dampening device provided within said first gas feed
line.

The Examiner rejects appealed independent claims 1 and 10 under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Moriya3 in view of McMillin4

3 US 5,494,522 issued to Moriya et al. on February 27, 1996.
3
Appeal 2008-6098
Application 10/466,107

and correspondingly rejects appealed independent claims 21 and 28 over
these references and further in view of Matsuo5.
Issues
Has Appellant shown error in the Examiner’s conclusion that it would
have been obvious to combine Moriya and McMillin in such as a manner as
to result in a gas injection system having the claim 1 feature
a controller configured to control said valve system to
redirect gas flow to said start-up line and restrict gas flow to
the principle gas feed line during a predetermined start-up
period of the processing reactor, and to control said valve
system to redirect gas flow to the principle gas feed line after
said predetermined start-up period has ended?

Has Appellant shown error in the Examiner’s conclusion that it would
have been obvious to combine Moriya, McMillin, and Matsuo in such a
manner as to result in a gas injection system having the claim 21 feature “an
acoustical dampening device provided within said first gas feed line”?
Findings of Fact
The Examiner finds that Moriya discloses a gas injection system of
the general type defined by claim 1 but lacking the claim 1 feature
a controller configured to control said valve system to
redirect gas flow to said start-up line and restrict gas flow to
the principle gas feed line during a predetermined start-up
period of the processing reactor, and to control said valve
system to redirect gas flow to the principle gas feed line after
said predetermined start-up period has ended

(Ans. 4-6).
4 US 6,333,272 B1 issued to McMillin et al. on Decemeber 25, 2001.
5 US 5,307,568 issued to Matsuo et al. on May 03, 1994.
4
Appeal 2008-6098
Application 10/466,107

The Examiner finds that McMillin discloses a controller for a gas
injection system (Ans. 6-7) and that “Applicant’s functional limitations [for
the claim 1 controller] are believed to be met by McMillin’s controller”
(Ans. 7).
Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that the subject
matter of claim 1 would have been obvious (id.).
The Examiner also finds that Moriya and McMillin disclose all
aspects of claim 21 except for the claim feature “an acoustical dampening
device provided within said first gas feed line” (Ans. 7-9).
In this later regard, the Examiner finds that Matsuo discloses a gas
injection system having “an acoustical dampening device (50; Figure 3;
column 5, lines 31-50) provided within said first gas feed line (on F5; Figure
2)” (Ans. 10).
These last two mentioned findings form the basis for the Examiner’s
conclusion that the subject matter of claim 21 would have been obvious
(id.).
Principles of Law
Rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Analysis
Concerning the rejection of representative claim 1, we agree with
Appellant that McMillin contains no teaching or suggestion of the controller
feature required by this claim and accordingly that the rejection under
5
Appeal 2008-6098
Application 10/466,107

consideration is improper (Br. 5-6). The Examiner’s contrary finding that
“Applicant’s functional limitations [for the claim 1 controller] are believed
to be met by McMillin’s controller” (Ans. 7) is not correct. The disclosures
of McMillin cited by the Examiner contain no teaching or suggestion of
redirecting gas flow to different feed lines depending upon whether a
predetermined start-up period has or has not ended in accordance with the
functional requirements of the claim 1 controller.
Under these circumstances, the Examiner has failed to articulate
reasoning with rational underpinning to support a legal conclusion that the
claim 1 subject matter would have been obvious.
As for representative claim 21, we also agree with Appellant’s
argument that the rejection of this claim is improper because Matsuo
contains no teaching or suggestion of the claim feature “an acoustical
dampening device provided within said first gas feed line” (Br. 6-7). As
indicated previously, the Examiner finds that this claim feature is disclosed
by Matsuo as element 50 shown in Figure 3 and discussed in lines 31-50 of
column 5 (Ans. 10). The Examiner is erroneous. Matsuo’s element 50
constitutes a vibration damping assembly constructed of rubber material
(col. 5, ll. 60-61; col. 6, ll. 7-20). Moreover, this vibration damping
assembling is not provided within a gas feed line as required by claim 21
(see fig. 5).
For these reasons, it would not have been obvious for an artisan to
somehow combine Moriya, McMillin, and Matsuo in such a manner as to
yield a gas injection system having “an acoustical dampening device
provided within said first gas feed line” as required by claim 21.

6
Appeal 2008-6098
Application 10/466,107

Conclusions of Law
Appellant has shown error in the Examiner’s conclusion that it would
have been obvious to combine Moriya and McMillin in such as a manner as
to result in a gas injection system having the claim 1 feature
a controller configured to control said valve system to
redirect gas flow to said start-up line and restrict gas flow to
the principle gas feed line during a predetermined start-up
period of the processing reactor, and to control said valve
system to redirect gas flow to the principle gas feed line after
said predetermined start-up period has ended.

Appellant has shown error in the Examiner’s conclusion that it would
have been obvious to combine Moriya, McMillin, and Matsuo in such a
manner as to result in a gas injection system having the claim 21 feature “an
acoustical dampening device provided within said first gas feed line”.
We cannot sustain, therefore, the rejection of claims 1 and 10 over
Moriya in view of McMillin or the rejection of claims 21 and 28 over
Moriya, McMillin, and Matsuo.
Order
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

ssl

OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, P.C.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
7