Ex Parte Utano et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 24, 2019

13889478 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/889,478 05/08/2013
26304 7590 06/26/2019
KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
575 MADISON A VENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10022-2585
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tetsuya Utano
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.
SHIN 5197
25.4 l 4(339243-00029)
EXAMINER
CROWELL, ANNA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2019 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
nycuspto@kattenlaw.com
samson.helf gott@kattenlaw.com
doreen.devito@kattenlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TETSUY A UT ANO and YUICHIRO NOGUCHI
Appeal2017-007715
Application 13/889,478
Technology Center 1700
Before JULIA HEANEY, BRIAND. RANGE, and MICHAEL G.
MCMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 requests review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 9, 11, and 21-24 of Application
13/889,478. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
1 This Decision refers to the Specification filed May 8, 2013 ("Spec."), Final
Rejection mailed Apr. 14, 2016 ("Final Act."), Appeal Brief filed Nov. 9,
2016 ("Appeal Br."), Examiner's Answer mailed Feb. 22, 2017 ("Ans."),
and Reply Brief filed Apr. 24, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2 Appellant is the Applicant, Shinkawa Ltd., which, according to the Appeal
Brief, is also the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-007715
Application 13/889,478
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a plasma apparatus capable of
igniting plasma stably over a long period, for use in etching or cleaning a
semiconductor circuit or bonding wires. Appeal Br. 3; Spec. ,r 2. According
to the Specification, Appellant seeks to provide reliable plasma ignition by
preserving fine surface unevenness on the internal electrode of the plasma
generating apparatus, which facilitates plasma ignition. Spec. ,r,r 6-8.
Appellant explains that positioning the internal electrode off the vicinity of
the axial center of the plasma generation area of the hollow structural body
within the apparatus prevents fine surface unevenness on the electrode from
being melted. Id. ,r 11.
Claim 9 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below:
9. A capacitively coupled plasma apparatus compnsmg:
a hollow structural body comprising a cylindrical-shaped ceramic,
the hollow structural body comprising a plasma generation area inside
the hollow structural body;
a first electrode comprising a conductive wire member disposed in
one plane, the first electrode being disposed inside the hollow structural
body;and
a second electrode formed as a hollow conductive cylindrical
member, the conductive cylindrical member having a first end and a
second end, the first end and the second end defining therebetween limits
of the plasma generation area inside the hollow structural body;
wherein the first electrode has a non-linear structure that has a
portion disposed in an area of an outer circumferential side from a
predetermined diameter centering on an axis of the hollow structural
body within at least the plasma generation area of the hollow structural
body, the first electrode is in contact with an inner wall of the hollow
2
Appeal2017-007715
Application 13/889,478
structural body within the plasma generation area of the hollow structural
body so as to ignite capacitively coupled plasma stably over a long period
in a state of atmospheric pressure.
Appeal Br. 12, Claims App.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
1. Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Ito 3 and Martin. 4 Final Act.
iT 5.
2. Claims 21-24 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Ito, Martin, and Tomita. 5 Id.
iT 6.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
The Examiner finds that Ito discloses a plasma apparatus comprising a
hollow structural body 2, 2F, a first electrode having a non-linear structure
80, 800 disposed inside the hollow structural body, and a second conductor
having a first end 4 and a second end 6, the first end and the second end
defining there between the limits of the plasma generation area inside the
3 Ito, JP 2002-343599; Nov. 29, 2002. Citations herein are to the
corresponding paragraphs of the translation of record, which Appellant
submitted via an Information Disclosure Statement dated March 10, 2016.
Appeal Br. 9.
4 Martin, US 5,833,752; Nov. 10, 1998.
5 Tomita et al. US. 7,582,184 B2; Sept. 1, 2009 ("Tomita").
3
Appeal2017-007715
Application 13/889,478
hollow structural body. Final Act. ,r 5 (citing Ito Figs. 1, 5, 6, ,r,r 8-19, 42-
45). The Examiner further finds that Ito's first electrode 800 is in contact
with an inner wall of the hollow structural body within the plasma
generation area of the hollow structural body. Id. (citing Ito Fig. 6). The
Examiner finds that Martin teaches a cylindrical shaped hollow conductive
member in a plasma apparatus (id. (citing Martin 7:36-42)), and determines
that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
substitute Martin's hollow cylindrical member for Ito's coil electrode, as an
art-recognized equivalent means for providing an
electrode/conductor/inductor to produce plasma. Id.
Figures 5 and 6 of Ito are reproduced below:
[~ 5]
/2r
./
[®6)
{ Q Cl O 0 0 0 0 0
J
t)l)
,:j () 0 0
I
Fig. 5 oflto
.l
4
0 0
Fig. 6 of Ho
Appeal Br. 8. Figures 5 and 6, reproduced above, show wire 80, 800 within
glass tube 2 having distal end portion 2F, and coil 4 (shown in cross-section)
wound around glass tube 2. Ito ,r,r 40-44.
Figure 1 of Ito is reproduced below:
4
Appeal2017-007715
Application 13/889,478
, , rr~ JO
•I~ ,
Fig. l of Ito
Appeal Br. 9. Figure 1, reproduced above, shows plasma torch 1 including
glass tube 2, and gas introducing tube 9 through which plasma gas is
introduced into metal tube 3 which is fitted to seal the base of the glass tube.
Ito ,r,r 8-9.
Appellant asserts that the non-linear portions of Ito's electrodes 80,
800 are outside the limits of the plasma generation area. Appeal Br. 8.
Specifically, Appellant disputes the Examiner's finding that Ito's
coil/electrode 6 and coil/electrode 4 define the limits of its plasma
generation area, because they assert that Ito describes coil 6 as an "ignition"
coil that discharges "a priming induction plasma" which is auxiliary to
plasma generation. Id. at 9 (citing Ito ,r,r 9, 16). Appellant further argues
that it is physically impossible for Ito's plasma generation area to extend
beyond high frequency coil 4 toward coil/electrode 6 because gas flows in a
5
Appeal2017-007715
Application 13/889,478
single direction within tube 2, from gas introduction tube 9 toward distal end
portion 2F where coil 4 is wound. Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner responds in part by noting that "plasma is ignited by
coil/electrode 6 and hence the plasma can [be] maintained by simply
controlling the power supply 7 at a specific power level . . . . Furthermore,
by operating at the desired pressure, plasma generation will extend to the
right of the coil/electrode 6." Ans. 3 (citing Ito ,r 16).
Having considered Appellant's arguments, we agree that on this
record, the Examiner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
Ito discloses a first electrode having a non-linear structure within the plasma
generation area of the hollow structural body, because Ito does not
unambiguously describe a plasma generation area between coil/electrode 6
and coil/electrode 4. For the reasons explained by Appellant (Reply Br. 2-
5), the Examiner has not sufficiently shown that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would understand from Ito that a plasma generation area exists in
tube 2 beyond the region wound by coil 4.
Rejection 2
Rejection 2 is based on the same deficient findings as discussed above
for Rejection 1, and the Examiner does not rely upon Tomita for any
disclosure that remedies the deficiency in Rejection 1. Accordingly, for the
reasons discussed above, we also reverse Rejection 2.
SUMMARY
We reverse the rejections of claims 9, 11, and 21-24 as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
6