Ex Parte Tench et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 21, 2005

10012079 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 21, 2005)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte D. MORGAN TENCH and JOHN T. WHITE
_____________
Appeal No. 2005-1680
Application No. 10/012,079
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before CAROFF, PAK and WARREN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAROFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-23, all the pending claims in appellants'
involved application.
All the appealed claims are directed to a cell assembly for
electroplating a semiconductor wafer.
Claim 1, the broadest of three independent claims, is
illustrative of the subject matter embraced by the claims on
appeal:
Appeal No. 2005-1680
Application No. 10/012,079
2
1. A cell assembly for electroplating a semiconductor
wafer using an electro plating solution, comprising:

an anode;
a cathode assembly for making electrical contact to the
wafer and for holding the wafer in a substantially
horizontal position;
a seal between the cathode assembly and the wafer to
prevent the solution from intruding into the region of
electrical contact between the cathode assembly and the
wafer;
a cell wall; and

a passageway disposed around the periphery of the
wafer, such that the electroplating solution, when forced
through said passageway into the cell assembly, is caused to
flow laminarly over the upper surface of the wafer, toward
the center of the water, and then upward within said cell
wall.
The prior art references applied by the examiner in
rejecting the claims are:
Swanson 3,616,396 Oct. 26, 1971
Suitor et al. (Suitor) 4,885,142 Dec. 5, 1989
Starinshak et al. (Starinshak) 5,100,517 Mar. 31, 1992
Poris 5,256,274 Oct. 26, 1993
Brinket et al. (Brinket) 5,514,258 May 7, 1996
Kosaki et al. (Kosaki) 6,033,540 Mar. 7, 2000
Keigler 6,540,899 Apr. 1, 2003
Davis et al. (Davis) 6,579,430 Jun. 17, 2003
Additionally, the examiner refers to the following on page
11 of his Answer:
Appeal No. 2005-1680
Application No. 10/012,079
3
! Geankoplis, “Principles of Momentum Transfer and Overall
Balances,” Transport Processes and Unit Operations,
pp. 31 48-9 (Prentice Hall, 1993).
In response, appellants refer to the following two
references on pages 3-4 of their reply brief:
! Bockris et al. (Bockris), Modern Electrochemistry, pp. 1058,
1070-71 (Plenum Press, Vol. 2, 1970).
! Gabe et al. (Gabe), “The rotating cylinder electrode:
its continued development and application,”
J. of App. Electrochemistry, pp. 759, 761 (Vol. 28, 1998).
The following six rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 10 and 12-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for obviousness in view of Kosaki taken in combination
with Suitor and Brinket.
2. Claim 2 stands rejected on the same basis with
additional reliance upon Poris.
3. Claims 3-4 stand rejected on the same basis as claims
1, 10 and 12-19, with additional reliance upon Swanson.
4. Claims 10-11 stand rejected on the same basis as claims
1, 10 and 12-19, with additional reliance upon Keigler.
5. Claims 20-21 stand rejected on the same basis as claims
1, 10 and 12-19, with additional reliance upon Starinshak.
Appeal No. 2005-1680
Application No. 10/012,079
4
6. Claims 5-9 and 22-23 stand rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of Davis.
Appellants have stipulated on page 5 of their brief that the
rejected claims stand or fall together for purposes of this
appeal.
Based upon the record before us, we find that the examiner
has failed to make out a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to any of the rejections before us. Accordingly, we
shall reverse each of the rejections on appeal.
With regard to basic claim 1, we agree with the examiner
that Kosaki shows all the features claimed other than “a
passageway disposed around the periphery of the wafer” to provide
for laminar flow of electroplating solution “over the upper
surface of the wafer, toward the center of the wafer, and then
upward” within the cell.
We also agree that Brinket suggests the possibility of
laminar flow of solution across the surface of a semiconductor
substrate in a similar electroplating apparatus for uniform
plating of metals on the substrate.
However, in our opinion, the fatal defect in all of the
examiner's rejections is the reliance upon Suitor as the key
Appeal No. 2005-1680
Application No. 10/012,079
5
reference to cure the deficiencies of Kosaki and Brinket. As we
see it, Suitor does not provide the requisite motivation to
provide a passageway, as defined in the present claims, in the
electroplating apparatus of Kosaki or Brinket.
Suitor relates to electrodialysis apparatus used to separate
oxygen from gases, and bears no clear relationship to
electroplating apparatus, as in Kosaki or Brinket, which are
typically used to form a metallic layer on the surface of a
substrate; the layer being deposited by an electroplating
solution. In essence, the examiner has failed to convincingly
explain why the benefit discussed by Suitor, i.e., uniform
removal of oxygen through an oxygen conductive solid electrolyte
disk by radial flow of feedstock gas from the outside edge of the
disk to the center (col. 1, ll. 35-40), would be considered
pertinent to electroplating apparatus by those of ordinary skill
in the plating art.
While the examiner and the appellants focus upon differences
and similarities in the fluid flow characteristics of gases and
liquids, we focus upon the distinction between electrodialysis
(passage of oxygen through a solid electrolyte as in Suitor) and
electroplating (deposition of a metallic layer on the surface of
a substrate as in Kosaki). Accordingly, in our view, the
Appeal No. 2005-1680
Application No. 10/012,079
6
problems addressed by Suitor do not appear to be reasonably
pertinent to the objective of attaining a uniform metallic
plating layer on the surface of a substrate, and the examiner has
failed to convince us otherwise.
None of the other references relied upon by the examiner
cure the deficiency in the examiner's case which we have
discussed above. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is
reversed.
REVERSED
MARC L. CAROFF )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHUNG K. PAK )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
CHARLES F. WARREN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MLC/hh
Appeal No. 2005-1680
Application No. 10/012,079
7
JOHN J. DEINKEN
1049 CAMINO DOS RIOS
P.O. BOX 1085
THOUSAND OAKS, CA 91358-0085