Ex Parte Wang

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 14, 2008

09837911 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 14, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HUI WANG
____________

Appeal 2007-2657
Application 09/837,911
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: July 14, 2008
____________

Before CHARLES F.WARREN, THOMAS A. WALTZ, and
JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Statement of the Case
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 110-129, 133-152, and 156-159. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6.

Appeal 2007-2657
Application 09/837,911

Appellant’s invention relates to a method and apparatus for plating a
film to a desired thickness on a surface on a substrate. An understanding of
Appellant’s invention can be gleaned from independent claims 110 and 113
which appear below:
110. A method for plating a film to a desired thickness on a
surface of a substrate, comprising:
providing a plurality of stacked plating modules and a substrate
transferring mechanism;
picking up a substrate from a substrate holder with the substrate
transferring mechanism;
loading the substrate into a first one of the stacked plating
modules with the substrate transferring mechanism;
positioning the substrate within a bath in the first one of the
stacked plating modules, the bath divided by a first wall and at
least a second wall, wherein the first wall is adjacent to a first
portion of the substrate and the at least second wall is adjacent
to at least a second portion of the substrate when the substrate is
positioned within the bath, wherein the first portion and the
second portion are portions of the same surface on the
substrate;
plating the film to the desired thickness on the first portion of
the substrate in the first one of the stacked plating modules; and
after plating the film on the first portion of the substrate, plating
the film to the desired thickness on the at least second portion
of the substrate in the first one of the stacked plating modules,
wherein, the second portion is at a different radial location than
the first portion.
113. An automated tool for plating a film on a substrate, the
substrate being a semiconductor wafer, comprising:
at least two plating baths positioned in a stacked relationship,
wherein each of the at least two plating baths is divided by a
first wall and at least a second wall, wherein each of the at least
two plating baths includes a first anode adjacent to the first wall
and a second anode adjacent to the at least second wall, wherein
2
Appeal 2007-2657
Application 09/837,911

the first and second anode are connected to a first power supply
and a second power supply, respectively, and wherein the first
and second power supplies are configured to alternate in
providing power to the first and second anodes, respectively;
at least one substrate holder;
a substrate transferring mechanism;
a frame supporting said plating baths, said substrate holder and
said substrate transferring mechanism; and
a control system in communication with said substrate
transferring mechanism, substrate holder and said plating baths
configured to continuously perform uniform film deposition on
the substrate.
.
The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting the
appealed subject matter:
Hirohiko, as translated JP 04-311591 Nov. 4, 1992
Van Raalte 3,880,725 Apr. 29, 1975
Kubo 5,326,455 Jul. 5, 1994
Andricacos 5,522,975 Jun. 4, 1996
Dubin 5,882,498 Mar. 16, 1999
Kobayashi 5,925,227 Jul. 20, 1999
Fairbairn 6,176,667 B1 Jan. 23, 2001
Davis 6,477,440 B1 Nov. 5, 2002
A. Kenneth Grahm and H. L. Pinkerton, Heating and Cooling Equipment,
Electroplating Engineering Handbook, second edition”, Reinhold Publishing
Corporation, New York, 534-535 (1962).

The Examiner finally rejected the appealed claims 110-129, 133-152,
and 156-159 as follows:
3
Appeal 2007-2657
Application 09/837,911

A. Claims 110, 119, 122, 123,127, and 129 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) over Fairbairn in view of Hirohiko. 1
B. Claims 111, 112, 124-126 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Fairbairn in view of Hirohiko and Dubin;
C. Claims 120 and 121 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Fairbairn in view of Hirohiko and Andricacos.
D. Claim 128 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fairbairn view
of Hirohiko and Kobayashi.
E. Claims 113, 115-116, 118,137, and 141-143 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fairbairn in view of Hirohiko and further in view of
Van Raalte or Kubo.
F. Claims 114, 138, 139, 144-150 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Fairbairn in view of Hirohiko and further in view of Van Raalte or
Kubo and Dubin.
G. Claim 117 stands rejected under 35 U.S .C. § 103(a) over Fairbairn view
of Hirohiko and further in view of Van Raalte or Kubo and Davis.
H. Claim 140 stands rejected under 35 U.S .C. § 103(a) over Fairbairn in
view of the Hirohiko and further in view of Van Raalte or Kubo and
Kobayashi.
I. Claims 151 and 152 stand rejected under 35 U.S .C. § 103(a) over
Fairbairn in view of the Hirohiko and further in view of Van Raalte or Kubo
and Dubin and Kobayashi.

1 An English-language translation of the Hirohiko document has been
provided in the present record.
4
Appeal 2007-2657
Application 09/837,911

J. Claims 133-135 and 156-158 stand rejected under 35 U.S .C. § 103(a)
over Fairbairn in view of Kimhiko and further in view of Van Raalte or
Kubo and Andricacos.
K. Claims 136 and 159 stand rejected under 35 U.S .C. § 103(a) over
Fairbairn in view of Hirohiko and further in view of Van Raalte or Kubo and
Andricacos and the Electroplating Engineering Handbook.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections for substantially the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer, which we adopt and
incorporate herein.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill
in the art; and (4) secondary considerations, if any. Graham v. John Deere Co.,
383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). “[A]nalysis [of whether the subject matter of a claim
would have been obvious] need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41 (2007) quoting
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390
(CCPA 1969) (“Having established that this knowledge was in the art, the
examiner could then properly rely, as put forth by the solicitor, on a conclusion of
obviousness ‘from common knowledge and common sense of the person of
5
Appeal 2007-2657
Application 09/837,911

ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular
reference.’”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 1406-07 (CCPA 1969) (“[I]t is
proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the references but also
the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom. . . .”).
Method claims 110-112 and 119-129. 2
A. Claims 110, 119, 122, 123,127, and 129 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) over Fairbairn in view of Hirohiko. 3
B. Claims 111, 112, 124-126 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Fairbairn in view of Hirohiko and Dubin;
C. Claims 120 and 121 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Fairbairn in view of Hirohiko and Andricacos.
D. Claim 128 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fairbairn in
view of Hirohiko and Kobayashi.
Appellants have not contested the Examiner's prima facie case for
combining the teachings of Fairbairn and Hirohiko. Rather, Appellants
contend that Hirohiko discloses plating across the entire surface of the wafer
at one time and therefore does not teach the use of different plaiting rates for
different portions of the metal film. (App. Br. 8). Appellants also contend
that the Examiner has failed to cite explicit disclosure from Hirohiko to
support the Examiner’s assertion that different plating rates are used to plate
different portions of the metal film. (App. Br. 7).

2 For these rejected claims Appellants have limited their arguments to claim
110. We will do likewise.
3 An English-language translation of the Hirohiko document has been
provided in the present record.
6
Appeal 2007-2657
Application 09/837,911

The issue before us is whether Appellants have shown that the
Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Based on the contentions of Appellants, the issue turns on whether Hirohiko
discloses or suggests different plating rates are used to plate different
portions of the metal film.
The language of the claimed invention specifies “plating a film to a
desired thickness on a first portion of the substrate and after plating the film
on the first portion of a substrate, plating the film to the desired thickness on
at least a second portion of the same substrate.” We agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 5) that this language does not require the plating that's
occurring on the first portion of the substrate to cease prior to plating
initiating on the second portion of the substrate. Appellants have not
directed us to evidence on this record that establishes that the plating of the
first portion must be complete prior to initiation of plating on the second
portion.
Regarding the plating rate, Hirohiko discloses that as the plating
solution flows a plating reaction occurs, and as the plating solution keeps
flowing from the center part towards the outer peripheral area and new
plating solution from the cylindrical spaces (123) joins the flow. (Hirohiko
[0023]). Thus, Hirohiko discloses that when the plating solution reaches the
substrate the plating reaction is initiated and this initiation of the plating
reaction is equivalent to the first portion specified by the claimed invention.
The subsequent application of plating solution including the addition from
the cylindrical spaces is equivalent to the claimed second portion of the
substrate. Hirohiko recognizes that precisely uniform films are not
obtainable. Hirohiko observes that when using a conventional plating device
7
Appeal 2007-2657
Application 09/837,911

and a device of the disclosed invention there is variation in film distribution
across the wafer. (Hirohiko [0028]). Consequently we agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 6) that the control of the plating reaction in Hirohiko “is not
sufficiently precise to obtain perfectly uniform deposition at all radial
positions, and a second portion is plated at a slightly slower rate than a first
portion. As deposition across the entire substrate continues, the second
portion reached the desired thickness at some time after the first portion as
now recited in claim 110.”
Appellant contends that the Examiner's definition of the phrase
“desired thickness” as any thickness is unreasonable and contrary to its
ordinary meaning. Appellant further contends “that the ordinary meaning of
‘desired thickness’ is any thickness that is wanted. (App. Br. 7).
We do not find Appellants’ position persuasive. Appellant’s
description of desired thickness as any thickness that is wanted does not
exclude the Examiner's definition of the phrase. The Appellant has not
identified a particular thickness that is suitable for the claimed invention.
Appellant has not indicated how a person of ordinary skill in the art
determines when the thickness is appropriate from the initial deposition
thickness to the final deposition thickness. Thus, the Examiner's definition
of "desired thickness" as any thickness is not patentably differentiated from
Appellant’s definition and this construction or meaning is reasonable absent
any contrary definition or guidelines in the Specification. See In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997);.
Regarding the rejections of claims 111-112 and 119-129 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a), we affirm these rejections advanced by the Examiner.
Appellant’s arguments repeat those presented for independent claim 110
8
Appeal 2007-2657
Application 09/837,911

(rejection discussed above) and have not otherwise presented separate
arguments on the merits for the rejections of claims 111-112 and 119-129.
In this regard, Appellant does not assert non-obviousness based on the
additional limitations set forth in claims 111-112 and 119-129 subject to
these rejections by explaining how the additional references (identified in
the statement of the rejection) applied thereto by the Examiner fail to
establish the obviousness of the additional features recited in this separately
rejected claims. Because we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive
as to independent claim 110, it follows that these arguments are
unpersuasive as to claims 111-112 and 119-129.

Apparatus Claims 113-118, 133-152, and 156-159
E. Claims 113,115-116, 118,137, and 141-143 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fairbairn in view of Hirohiko and further in view of
Van Raalte or Kubo.
F. Claims 114, 138, 139, 144-150 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Fairbairn in view of Hirohiko and further in view of Van Raalte or
Kubo and Dubin.
G. Claim 117 stands rejected under 35 U.S .C. § 103(a) over Fairbairn view
of the Hirohiko and further in view of Van Raalte or Kubo and Davis.
H. Claim 140 stands rejected under 35 U.S .C. § 103(a) over Fairbairn in
view of Hirohiko and further in view of Van Raalte or the Kubo and
Kobayashi.
I. Claims 151 and 152 stand rejected under 35 U.S .C. § 103(a) over
Fairbairn in view of the Hirohiko and further in view of Van Raalte or Kubo
and Dubin and Kobayashi.
9
Appeal 2007-2657
Application 09/837,911

J. Claims 133-135 and 156-158 stand rejected under 35 U.S .C. § 103(a)
over Fairbairn in view of Kimhiko and further in view of Van Raalte or the
Kubo and Andricacos.
K. Claims 136 and 159 stand rejected under 35 U.S .C. § 103(a) over the
Fairbairn in view of the Hirohiko and further in view of Van Raalte or Kubo
and Andricacos and the Electroplating Engineering Handbook.

The subject matter of independent claims 113 and 142 is directed to
an automated tool for plating a film on a semiconductor wafer substrate.
The Examiner contends that the invention of claims 113 and 142 differ from
the combined teachings of Fairbairn and Hirohiko in that the claims require
that first and second anodes are connected to the first and second power
supplies. The Examiner recognizes that Hirohiko discloses a plurality of
anodes. However, Hirohiko does not disclose that these anodes are
connected to a plurality of power supplies. The Examiner cites the Van
Raalte and Kubo references as evidence that independent control of a
plurality of counter electrodes in an electroplating process was known by
persons of ordinary skill in the art. (Ans. 10-11).
Appellant contends that Van Raalte does not disclose a second anode
as recited in the claims. Appellant contends that the Van Raalte and Kubo
references do not disclose the requisite motivation to configure the power
supplies to alternate in providing power to the first and second anodes, as
recited in claims 113 and 142, because modifying the Van Raalte and Kubo
references in such a manner would change their principle of operation.
(App. Br. 10-11).

10
Appeal 2007-2657
Application 09/837,911

Correspondingly, the issue presented is: Did Appellants identify
reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 113 and 142 under §
103? We answer this question in the negative. The issue turns on whether a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the
plurality of anodes disclose by Hirohiko could have been connected to a
plurality of power supplies
A claimed invention is unpatentable if the differences between it and
the prior art “are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill
in the art.” 35 U.S.C. § 103. “The combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739. The question to be
asked is “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior
art elements according to their established functions.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at
1740.
The Examiner has determined that the combined teachings of
Fairbairn and Hirohiko differed from the claimed invention in that the first
and second anodes are connected to the first and second power supplies.
The Examiner recognizes that Hirohiko discloses a plurality of anodes.
However; Hirohiko does not disclose these anodes are connected to a
plurality of power supplies. The Examiner cites the Van Raalte and Kubo
references as evidence that independent control of a plurality of counter
electrodes in an electroplating process was known by persons of ordinary
skill in the art. (Ans. 10-11).
Under these circumstances, we concur with the Examiner that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have had sufficient skill and
11
Appeal 2007-2657
Application 09/837,911

creativity to utilize independent control of a plurality of counter electrodes in
the electroplating process of Hirohiko. A person of ordinary skill in the art
who desired independent control and operation of the electrodes would have
been led to the claimed subject matter, motivated by a reasonable
expectation that the utilization of independent power supplies would have
been appropriate for this purpose. Cf. In re Ludwig, 353 F.2d 241, 243-244
(CCPA 1965). (Patentability does not convey to an invention where only
simple observation is required to ascertain a problem). A person of ordinary
skill in the art would have sufficient skill to select the appropriate
independent power supplies for the electrodes of type of Hirohiko.
Appellants’ separate arguments directed towards the modification of
Van Raalte and Kubo references do not address the basis upon which the
Examiner cited these references. Specifically, Appellants have not
addressed the evidence that independent control of a plurality of counter
electrodes in an electroplating process was known by persons of ordinary
skill in the art and would have been suitable for operation of the electrodes
of type of Hirohiko.
Regarding the rejections of claims 114-118, 133-141, 143-152, and
156-159 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we affirm these rejections advanced by
the Examiner. Appellants’ arguments repeat those presented for independent
claim 113 and 142 (rejection discussed above) and has not otherwise
presented separate arguments on the merits for the rejections of claims 114-
118, 133-141, 143-152, and 156-159. In this regard, Appellants do not
assert non-obviousness based on the additional limitations set forth claims
114-118, 133-141, 143-152, and 156-159 subject to these rejections by
explaining how the additional references (identified in the statement of the
12
Appeal 2007-2657
Application 09/837,911

rejection above) applied thereto by the Examiner fail to establish the
obviousness of the additional features recited in this separately rejected
claims. Because we do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive as to
independent claims 113 and 142, it follows that these arguments are
unpersuasive as to claims 114-118, 133-141, 143-152, and 156-159.
For the foregoing reasons and those presented in the Answer, the
rejection of claims 110-129, 133-152, and 156-159 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
is affirmed. As a final point with respect to the § 103 rejection, we note that
Appellants base no argument upon objective evidence of nonobviousness,
such as unexpected results.

ORDER
The rejections of claims 110-129, 133-152, and 156-159 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tc

HUI “DAVID” WANG, PRESIDENT
ACM RESEARCH, INC.
4378 ENTERPRISE STREET
FREMONT, CA 94538

13