Ex Parte Timans et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2016

12776845 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2016)

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.
MAT-9C1 3177
EXAMINER
DUNIVER, DIALLO IGWE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/776,845 05/10/2010
21833 7590 12/21/2016
PRITZKAU PATENT GROUP, LLC
993 GAPTER ROAD
BOULDER, CO 80303
Paul J. Timans
12/21/2016 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 PAUL J. TIMANS, DANIEL J. DEVINE, YOUNG JAI LEE,
YAO ZHI HU, and PETER C. BORDIGA
Appeal 2014-009580
Application 12/776,845
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Paul J. Timans et al. (“Appellants”)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—7, 15—18, and 23—29, which
are all the pending claims. See Appeal Br. 4—5.2 We have jurisdiction over
the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Mattson
Technology, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Reference herein is made to Appellants’ Supplemental Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.”), filed March 3, 2014.
Appeal 2014-009580
Application 12/776,845
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ disclosed invention relates to “heat processing a treatment
object such as, for example, a semiconductor substrate, and, more
particularly to a process chamber having a selective reflectivity profile for
use in such heat processing.” Spec. 12. Claims 1 and 15, reproduced below
with emphasis added, are the independent claims and are representative of
the subject matter on appeal.
1. A system for processing a treatment object having a
given emission spectrum at a treatment object temperature
which causes the treatment object to produce a treatment object
radiated energy, said system comprising:
a heating arrangement for heating the treatment object
using a heating arrangement radiated energy having a heat
source emission spectrum at a heat source operating
temperature which heat source emission spectrum is different
from said given emission spectrum of the treatment object; and
a chamber arrangement exposing said treatment object to
a portion of the heating arrangement radiated energy while
supporting said treatment object within a treatment chamber
such that a first fraction of the heating arrangement radiated
energy and a second fraction of the treatment object radiated
energy are incident on an outer wall arrangement which forms
part of the chamber arrangement, and at least a portion of the
outer wall arrangement is configured for responding in a first
way to a majority of the first fraction of the heating
arrangement radiated energy that is incident thereon while that
portion of the wall arrangement simultaneously responds in a
second way to a majority of the second fraction of the treatment
object radiated energy that is incident thereon, based on a
difference between the heat source emission spectrum and the
given emission spectrum of the treatment object.
2
Appeal 2014-009580
Application 12/776,845
15. A system for processing a treatment object, said system
comprising:
a heating arrangement for heating the treatment object
using a heating arrangement radiated energy; and
a chamber arrangement for exposing said treatment
object therein to one portion of the heating arrangement
radiated energy while another portion of the heating
arrangement radiated energy is incident on the chamber
arrangement, resulting in an overall radiated energy present
within the chamber arrangement, said chamber arrangement
including a window between said heating arrangement and said
treatment object such that the window is opaque, at least to an
approximation, at wavelengths longer than an opacity onset
wavelength, at least a portion of said chamber arrangement,
other than said window, including a selectively reflective
configuration which responds in a first way to a majority of
said overall radiated energy incident thereon which is of a
shorter wavelength than said opacity onset wavelength while
simultaneously responding in a second way to a majority of the
overall radiated energy that is incident thereon and which is of
a longer wavelength than said opacity onset wavelength.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on
appeal:
the following evidence in rejecting the claims
Orthuber US 3,144,562 Aug. 11, 1964
Camm (“Camm ’735”) US 5,561,735 Oct. 1, 1996
Gat US 5,960,158 Sept. 28, 1999
Harrison US 6,415,783 B1 July 9, 2002
Camm (“Camm ’098”) US 2002/0102098 A1 Aug. 1,2002
3
Appeal 2014-009580
Application 12/776,845
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. Claims 15—18 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement.
II. Claims 1 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Camm ’735.
III. Claims 1, 2, 4—7, 15, 23, 24, and 27—29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Camm ’098 and
Camm ’735.
IV. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Camm ’098, Camm ’735, and Gat.
V. Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Camm ’098, Camm ’735, and
Harrison.
VI. Claims 18, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Camm ’098, Camm ’735, and
Orthuber.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I— Claims 15—18 and 29 as
failing to comply with the written description requirement
The stated basis for the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, is that Appellants’ Specification provides insufficient written
description support for “said chamber arrangement, other than said
window,” as recited in claim 15. See Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner
4
Appeal 2014-009580
Application 12/776,845
explained that “Figures 8—10 of the . . . [Specification disclose[] a window
assembly apart of the chamber wall arrangement.” Id. at 3. According to
the Examiner, paragraph 71 of the Specification describes “that the quartz
material used ... as a window is the same window material that is used as a
coating material on the chamber walls.” Ans. 2.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s characterization of the window
material and wall material as being the same is incorrect. See Reply Br. 5.
In particular, Appellants assert that “Figure 4, only by way of example,
shows a chamber that is formed from opaque quartz walls that include a high
concentration of OH bonds” and, therefore, “the subject window and wall[s]
are not the same chemically.” Id. (citing Spec. 171) (emphasis added).
According to Appellants, “[sjince the walls are opaque, they cannot be used
as a window because a window must include some degree of transmissivity
for at least some wavelengths.” Id. Appellants’ argument is persuasive.
Paragraph 71 of the Specification describes an exemplary embodiment
of a chamber arrangement formed of “an opaque quartz (fused silica) wall
arrangement 92.” Spec. 171. This paragraph does not describe the window
as being made of the same opaque quartz. Even if the Specification only
described the chamber walls and window as made generally of quartz
material, the Examiner does not point to anything suggesting that the
chamber walls and window would necessarily be made of the same type of
quartz, such that each element would exhibit the same properties, or would
not be separable elements of the overall chamber assembly.
We agree with Appellants that the Specification provides support for
the limitation in question sufficient to satisfy the written description
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. For example, as Appellants
5
Appeal 2014-009580
Application 12/776,845
identify, “paragraphs 21 and 22 of the [Specification explicitly describe a
chamber which includes a window,” and “[tjhese chambers are illustrated in
Figures 7 and 8, respectively.” Appeal Br. 8. In particular, “Figure 7
illustrates a chamber arrangement having a window 142 and a chamber
wall 141,” wherein “the latter is a portion of the chamber arrangement and is
other than window 141.” Reply Br. 4; see also Spec. 178 (describing
Figure 7).
The embodiments depicted in Figures 7 and 8, as well as the
corresponding description of these embodiments provided in the
Specification, would reasonably convey to one having ordinary skill in the
art that Appellants had possession of a system for processing a treatment
object where a portion of the chamber arrangement, other than the window,
includes a selectively reflective configuration as called for in claim 15. See
AriadPharm., Inc. v. EliLilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 15, and claims 16—18
and 29 depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Rejection II— Claims 1 and 15 as anticipated by Camm ’735
Claim 1
Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part,
at least a portion of the outer wall arrangement is configured for
responding in a first way to a majority of the first fraction of the
heating arrangement radiated energy that is incident thereon
while that portion of the wall arrangement simultaneously
responds in a second way to a majority of the second fraction of
the treatment object radiated energy that is incident thereon,
6
Appeal 2014-009580
Application 12/776,845
based on a difference between the heat source emission spectrum
and the given emission spectrum of the treatment object.
Appeal Br. 24, Claims App. (emphasis added).
Appellants argue that Camm ’735 fails to disclose “a portion of an
outer wall arrangement that responds simultaneously in the recited first and
second ways.” Appeal Br. 9. In particular, Appellants assert that, “[e]ven in
view of a broad interpretation of the term ‘portion’, it should be appreciated
that the surfaces that are referred to in Camm [’735] are either reflective or
absorbing, irrespective of wavelength,” and, therefore, “the subject walls do
not respond to incident radiation with spectral sensitivity.” Reply Br. 6
(emphasis added; underlining omitted). In other words, Camm ’735’s
chamber walls “behave in the same way irrespective of spectral differences
or wavelength differences.” Id. We agree.
The Examiner found that Camm ’735 discloses all of the limitations
recited in independent claim 1, including
at least a portion of the outer wall arrangement 22, 24,26,28,29,
31, 33, 36, 38, 40, 42, 70, 72 and 74 . . . configured for
responding in a first way (i.e. transmit radiation) to a majority of
the first fraction of the heating arrangement radiated energy that
is incident thereon while that portion of the wall arrangement 22,
24, 26, 28, 29, 31, 33, 36, 38, 40, 42, 70, 72 and 74
simultaneously responds in a second way (i.e. absorbs radiation)
to a majority of the second fraction of the treatment object
radiated energy that is incident thereon (Col. 5, lines 1-65;
Col. 6, lines 54 thru Col. 7, line 49; Figures 1-8), based on a
difference between the heat source emission spectrum and the
given emission spectrum of the treatment object (Col. 5, lines
1-65; Col. 6, lines 54 thru Col. 7, line 49; Col. 8, lines 26-57;
Figures 1-8).
Final Act. 4. The Examiner clarifies that “‘a portion of the chamber wall
arrangement’ . . . constitute^] at least a first outer wall 22, 24, 26 and a
7
Appeal 2014-009580
Application 12/776,845
second outer wall 31, 33, 70, 72, 74.” Ans. 4 (citing Camm ’735, col. 5,
11. 14—25; Figs. 1, 2); see id. at 5 (including an annotated reproduction of
Figure 2 of Camm ’735). The Examiner explains that Camm ’735’s “first
and second outer wall portion[s] consist of a radiation absorbing interior
surface 22, 24, 26 and a highly reflective interior surface coating 31, 33, 70,
72, 74.” Id. at 4. According to the Examiner, “since Camm [’735] teaches a
portion of an outer wall arrangement that responds simultaneously in the
first and second way, [Camm ’735] teaches the limitations of claim 1.” Id.
Camm ’735 discloses that “walls 22, 24, and 26 have respective
radiation absorbing surfaces 36, 38, and 40, each having a surface area
operable to absorb radiation impinging thereon, from inside the enclosure.”
Camm ’735, col. 5,11. 18—21 (boldface omitted). Camm ’735 also discloses
that “remaining walls 28 and 29 are coated with a highly reflective surface
coating such as aluminum and have respective reflecting surfaces 31 and
33.” Id., col. 5,11. 23—25 (boldface omitted). However, to the extent that
Camm ’735 discloses a portion of the overall wall arrangement responding
in a first way by absorbing radiation and in a second way by reflecting
radiation, the Examiner does not identify—nor do we discern—disclosure in
Camm ’735 that such absorbing and reflecting responses of the wall
arrangement portion are “based on a difference between the heat source
emission spectrum and the given emission spectrum of the treatment object,”
as recited in claim 1. In this regard, we agree with Appellants (see Reply
Br. 6.) that Camm ’735’s chamber walls absorb or reflect radiation from the
heat source and treatment object in the same way without respect to any
difference in the given emission spectrum of the heat source and treatment
object. In other words, the Examiner’s finding that Camm ’735 discloses an
8
Appeal 2014-009580
Application 12/776,845
outer wall arrangement that responds to radiated energy in a first way and a
second way based on a difference between the emissions spectrums of the
heat source and treatment object is not supported by a preponderance of the
evidence.
Accordingly, based on the record before us—because an anticipation
rejection requires a finding in a single reference of each and every limitation
as set forth in the claims—we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1 as anticipated by Camm ’735.
Claim 15
Independent claim 15 recites, in relevant part,
that the window is opaque, at least to an approximation, at
wavelengths longer than an opacity onset wavelength, at least a
portion of said chamber arrangement, other than said window,
including a selectively reflective configuration which responds
in a first way to a majority of said overall radiated energy
incident thereon which is of a shorter wavelength than said
opacity onset wavelength while simultaneously responding in a
second way to a majority of the overall radiated energy that is
incident thereon and which is of a longer wavelength than said
opacity onset wavelength.
Appeal Br. 25, Claims App. (emphasis added).
Appellants argue that “[independent claim 15 recites a window
including detailed relationship between a selective reflectivity configuration
of a portion of the chamber arrangement, other than the window, and the
opacity onset wavelength of the window.” Appeal Br. 9. In particular,
Appellants assert that “[t]he rejections in the Final Office Action, the
Advisory Action and the Examiner’s Answer appear to be silent with respect
to these detailed features.” Reply Br. 7. We agree.
9
Appeal 2014-009580
Application 12/776,845
The Examiner found that Camm ’735 anticipates a system for
processing a treatment object as recited in claim 15. See Final Act. 3^4.
The Examiner clarifies that Camm ’735 “teaches of a window 56 made of
conventional quartz material and chamber walls 22, 24, 26, 31, 33, 70, 72,
74 made of a radiation absorbing and a highly reflective interior surface
coating.” Ans. 4. According to the Examiner, “since [Camm ’735] teaches
of the window material being separate from the wall material, [Camm ’735]
teaches of ‘a portion of the chamber . . . arrangement, other than the
window’ as recited in claim 15.” Id.
Initially, we agree with the Examiner that Camm ’735 discloses a
window and a portion of the chamber arrangement, other than the window,
that responds to radiated energy in a first way by absorbing the radiated
energy and responds in a second way by reflecting the radiated energy. See
id. at 4. However, the Examiner’s rejection does not identity any teaching in
Camm ’735 regarding the opacity onset wavelength of the window, or that
the absorbing and reflecting responses of the chamber portion are based on
the radiated energy wavelengths being shorter or longer than the opacity
onset wavelength. An anticipation rejection requires a finding of each and
every element or step as set forth in the claim in a single reference. See
Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir.
1987). Thus, the Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the
evidence that Camm ’735 anticipates all elements of the subject matter
recited in claim 15.
Accordingly, based on the record before us, we do not sustain the
rejection of independent claim 15 as anticipated by Camm ’735.
10
Appeal 2014-009580
Application 12/776,845
Rejection III— Claims 1, 2, 4—7, 15, 23, 24, and 27—29 as
unpatentable over Camm ’098 and Camm ’735
In Rejection III of independent claims 1 and 15, the Examiner
acknowledged that Camm ’098 does not disclose at least a portion of the
wall segment being configured for responding to heating arrangement
radiated energy in a first way and to treating object radiated energy in a
second way. Final Act. 6. Thus, the Examiner does not rely on Camm ’098
in any way that would cure the aforementioned deficiencies in the
Examiner’s findings with respect to the disclosure of Camm ’735. Rather,
the Examiner relied on the same findings made with respect to Camm ’735
discussed supra for Rejection II. See id. at 6—7. Thus, Rejection III suffers
from the same deficiency discussed supra with respect to Rejection II.
Namely, the Examiner’s finding that Camm ’735 discloses an outer wall
arrangement that responds to radiated energy in a first way and a second way
based on a difference between the emissions spectrums of the heat source
and treatment object, as called for in claim 1, is not supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. Regarding the rejection of claim 15, the
Examiner does not identify any teaching in Camm ’735 regarding the
opacity onset wavelength of the window, or that the absorbing and reflecting
responses of the chamber portion are based on the radiated energy
wavelengths being shorter or longer than the opacity onset wavelength.
Additionally, we find deficient the Examiner’s reasoning provided in
support of the conclusion of obviousness. The Examiner concluded that,
given the teachings of Camm ’098 and Camm ’735, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “to
modify the . . . outer wall assembly of Camm [’098] in view of the outer
11
Appeal 2014-009580
Application 12/776,845
wall assembly of [Camm ’735] because [Camm ’735] [discloses] reducing
any thermal gradient perpendicular to the surface of the wafer, which
reduces thermal stress.” Final Act. 7. Although Camm ’735 discloses that
“[minimizing the transfer of power through [a] wafer, minimizes pattern
effects of the wafer and reduces any thermal gradient perpendicular to the
surface of the wafer, which reduces thermal stress” (Camm ’735, col. 4,
11. 19—23), the Examiner does not explain what relationship, if any, exists
between the proposed modification of Camm ’098 ’s chamber walls and
reducing thermal stress on a wafer. As such, the Examiner has not
articulated sufficient reasoning supported by rational underpinnings why a
person having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify the
chamber walls of Camm ’098 based on the teachings of Camm ’735. See
KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (stating that
“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” (citing
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006))).
Accordingly, based on the record before us, the Examiner has not met
the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. On this basis,
we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 15, and of
dependent claims 2, 4—7, 23, 24, and 27—29, as being unpatentable over
Camm ’098 and Camm ’735.
12
Appeal 2014-009580
Application 12/776,845
Rejections IV—VI— Claims 3, 16—18, 25, and 26 as
unpatentable over Camm ’098, Camm ’735, and
one of Gat, Harrison, and Orthuber
In Rejections IV—VI, the Examiner relied on Gat, Harrison, and
Orthuber for teaching additional features of dependent claims, but not in any
way that would cure the deficiencies discussed supra with respect to the
disclosure of Camm ’735 as applied in Rejection III of independent claims 1
and 15. See Final Act. 8—24. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections
of dependent claims 3, 16—18, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—7, 15—18,
and 23-29.
REVERSED
13