Ex Parte Wang

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 30, 2008

10624728 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 30, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ALBERT WANG
____________

Appeal 2008-4454
Application 10/624,728
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: September 30, 2008
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, LINDA M. GAUDETTE and
JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 18-25.1 (Examiner’s Answer entered

1 Claims 1-11 and 13-17 have been cancelled. (Appeal Brief filed August
22, 2007, hereinafter “Br.,” 2).
Appeal 2008-4454
Application 10/624,728

November 29, 2007, hereinafter “Ans.”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a dual chamber
processing system that continuously processes a plurality of workpieces
including a common power source, a first plasma applicator, a second
plasma applicator, a robot, exactly one pump, and a computer. (Spec.
[0010]). The computer is configured to control the pump and robot to affect
pump-down and subsequent process pumping of one of the chambers during
simultaneous venting, workpiece removal and workpiece reloading of the
other chamber. Id. The pump-down pumping of one of the chambers and
the venting of the other chamber begin at substantially the same time. (Spec.
[0017], [0018], [0026], and [0027]). The computer is also configured to
open the pump to fluid communication with only one of the chambers at a
time. (Spec. [0010]).
Claim 12, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
12. A dual chamber processing system for continuously
processing a plurality of workpieces comprising:
a common power source switchable between a first
plasma applicator of a first chamber and a second plasma
applicator of a second chamber,

the first chamber for processing a second workpiece in a
vacuum to completion therein when the power source is applied
thereto and switched ON,

a robot configured to remove at substantially atmospheric
pressure a first workpiece from the second chamber after
2
Appeal 2008-4454
Application 10/624,728

processing the first workpiece, the robot configured to reload
the second chamber with a third workpiece to be processed
while the second workpiece is being processed in the first
chamber, the robot configured to remove at substantially
atmospheric pressure the second workpiece from the first
chamber after processing the first workpiece, the robot
configured to reload the first chamber with a fourth workpiece
to be processed while the third workpiece is being processed in
the second chamber,

the second chamber for processing the third workpiece in
a vacuum to completion therein when the power source is
applied to the second plasma applicator and switched ON,

exactly one pump adapted to be in fluid communication
with the first and second chambers, the pump being configured
to perform both process pumping and pump-down pumping of
both chambers; and

a computer configured to repeatedly synchronously and
alternately control the power source application, the robot
movement, the chamber processing, and the pump, the
computer configured to control the pump and the robot to effect
pump-down and subsequent process pumping of one of the
chambers during simultaneous venting, workpiece removal and
workpiece reloading of the other of the chambers, such that said
pump-down pumping of one of the chambers and said venting
of the other of the chambers begin at substantially the same
time, and the computer being configured to open the pump to
fluid communication with only one of the chambers at a time.

THE REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Cox 6,228,773 B1 May 8, 2001
Khan 6,802,933 B2 Oct. 12, 2004 (Dec. 18, 2000)
3
Appeal 2008-4454
Application 10/624,728

Claims 12 and 18-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2002)
as being unpatentable over Cox in view of Khan.2
The Examiner found that Cox teaches all the limitations of claim 12
with the exception of a computer configured as claimed. (Ans. 6 and 7).
The Examiner found that Khan teaches a computer controller for process
control of plural chambers and power. (Ans. 7). The Examiner determined
that it would have been obvious to add Khan’s computer controller method
to Cox’s process components for process automation and to optimize the
operation of the claimed invention. Id. The Examiner additionally contends
that in view of the disclosures of Cox and Khan, the operations for
controlling plural processing chambers for serial or parallel processing are
within the level of ordinary skill in the art. (Ans. 10 and 11).
Appellant contends that Khan does not teach a computer configured to
effect pump down and subsequent process pumping in one chamber while
another chamber simultaneously undergoes venting, workpiece removal, and
workpiece reloading, where the pump down pumping in one chamber begins
at substantially the same time as the venting in another chamber. (Br. 12).
Appellant argues that Cox teaches away from the operational sequence as
Cox’s operational sequence is more time efficient than the claimed
operational sequence. (Br. 12 and 13, Reply Brief, filed March 10, 2008,
hereinafter, “Rep.,” 7-10).

2 We do not address the other rejections of claims 1, 3-12, and 18-25 on the
grounds of 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) and §102(g), obviousness-type double
patenting, and obviousness over certain prior art references as these
rejections have been withdrawn by the Examiner and/or are moot in view of
the cancellation of claims 1 and 3-11. (Ans. 2 and 3).
4
Appeal 2008-4454
Application 10/624,728

ISSUE
Based on the contentions of the Examiner and the Appellant, we
frame the issue before us on appeals as: Has Appellant shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting the appealed claims as being obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art over the cited prior art of record?
We answer this question in the negative.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
1. Appellant’s Specification states:
The inventors have discovered that, in practice, the ideal
"zero overhead" operating condition of the previous system is
not always achieved because in some situations, the preparation
phase takes slightly longer than the processing phase. For
example, a given process, such as a photoresist removal
process, may take roughly 15 seconds to complete. If the
preparation phase also took 15 seconds to complete, the system
would be operating at "zero overhead," and thus the system of
Figure 1 could process 240 substrates per hour. In certain
situations, however, the system of Figure 1 has been found to
have a throughput rate of only 200 substrates per hour for a 15
second process, thus implying that the preparation phase can
take slightly longer than the processing step.
(Spec. [0022]).

2. Appellant’s Specification states:
As illustrated graphically in Figure 3, if the steps carried out
in the preparation phase 90 of the first chamber 10 (for
example) are not completed when the second chamber 12
finishes its processing phase 100, then the process pump 22
5
Appeal 2008-4454
Application 10/624,728

must idle until the first chamber 10 can be transitioned to the
processing phase 100. Similarly, in the system of Figures 1 and
3, the pump-down pump 20 will remain idle for substantial
lengths of time during which it is not needed. These idle times
represent a substantial facility expense incurred in operating
and maintaining the pumps.
(Spec. [0023]).

3. Appellant’s Specification states:
These idle times can be substantially eliminated by
switching the pump down procedure from the preparation phase
90 to the processing phase 102 as shown in Figure 4, thereby
providing substantial savings in facility expense as well as
allowing for the elimination of a number of costly pumping
system components.
(Spec. [0024]).

4. In Appellant’s system where venting, unloading, loading, and
pump down take longer than processing, the computer is
configured to locate the down time between loading the wafer and
pumping down of a chamber. (Exhibit A).
5. In Appellant’s depiction of Cox’s single pump systems, the
computer is configured to locate the down time between
processing and venting. (Exhibit A).
6. Cox discloses process systems containing a single vacuum pump to
reduce costs. (Col. 2, ll. 2-22, Fig. 15, col. 8, ll. 35-53, col. 13, ll.
14-39).
7. Cox states:
One need not be concerned about connecting both chambers
to a single vacuum pump out of fear of interaction when one
chamber is processing a wafer and the other chamber begins to
pump down from atmosphere, expecting that the burst of air
could potentially travel down the vacuum line to the pump and
6
Appeal 2008-4454
Application 10/624,728

back up to the chamber processing the wafer. The most
negative pressure is going to be at the pump head. If the
vacuum lines are long enough and big enough in diameter, the
pressure will equalize and expand to fill the space. By the time
the side that is pumping down reaches the pump, the pressure
will be very low. . . . The key to this working is sufficiently
long vacuum lines to provide isolation between the two process
chambers.
(Col. 13, ll. 14-32).

8. Cox states:
In other words if the wait time is zero, then the overhead is near
zero and 100% utilization of the processing capacity of the
machine is being realized. Achieving near zero wait time is
simply a function of doing what is necessary to shorten and
equalize the processing times in the adjacent chambers while
speeding up the robot to finish his tasks in the same or similar
amount of time.
(Col. 14, ll. 44-50).

9. Cox expressly recognizes that down time occurs as Cox refers to
the overhead as being “near zero” throughout the patent,
acknowledging that overhead time exists in some applications.
(Col. 8, ll. 35-36, col. 9, ll. 42-49, col. 14, ll. 39-50).
10. Cox teaches that his invention has the advantages of elimination of
redundant costs and increasing system throughput. (Col. 6, ll. 32-
62).
11. Khan states:
Sequencing recipes determine how substrates move from the
loadlocks through the processing and auxiliary chambers of
processing system 400. Sequencing recipes can be associated
with individual substrates, groups of substrates or entire
cassettes of substrates. Sequencing recipes employ scheduling
7
Appeal 2008-4454
Application 10/624,728

algorithms to optimize substrate throughput, chamber
utilization and minimize deadlocks.
(Col. 28, ll. 1-7).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented 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 to which said
subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,
1734 (2007).

ANALYSIS
Appellant has not separately grouped the claims on appeal.
Accordingly, we confine our discussion to appealed claim 12 pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
Appellant’s contention that the computer configured as claimed would
not have been obvious over Cox in view of Khan is unpersuasive. Appellant
argues that in dual chamber processing systems, each chamber undergoes the
following steps for operation: (1) load; (2) pump down; (3) process; (4)
vent; and (5) unload. (See Rep. 8). Appellant’s Specification characterizes
loading, pump down, venting, and unloading as a “preparation phase,” while
processing is characterized as a “processing phase.” (FF 2). Appellant’s
Specification states that by switching the pump down procedures from the
preparation phase to the processing phase, substantial savings in facility
8
Appeal 2008-4454
Application 10/624,728

expense as well as the elimination of pumping system components may be
obtained. (FF 3).
We are of the opinion that whether the pump down procedure is
characterized as part of a “processing phase” or a “preparation phase,” is
immaterial, as the timing of the actual tasks that need to be completed in
each chamber relative to the other controls the processing sequence.3 In
situations where the processing requirements for a particular semiconductor
wafer dictate that venting, unloading, loading, and pump down take longer
than processing, any down time present as a result must be distributed
between the two chambers. The computer configuration depends on where
in the process sequence the down time is located. The computer in
Appellant’s system is configured to locate the down time between loading
the wafer and pumping down of a chamber. (FF 4). In Appellant’s
depiction of Cox’s single pump systems, the computer is configured to
locate the down time between processing and venting. (FF 5).
Appellant argues that the presently claimed process system sacrifices
temporal efficiency of two pump “zero overhead” systems for two
advantages: (1) a reduction in the number of pumps, and (2) process
pumping during the entirety of each chamber’s processing phase. (Br. 13,
Rep. 7; FF 2). However, Cox also teaches these advantages. Specifically,
Cox discloses dual chamber processing systems containing a single vacuum

3 We note that the present claims are directed to a dual chamber processing
system, in which the computer configuration is a physical limitation. See In
re Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395, 1400 (CCPA 1969) (if a machine is
programmed in a certain new and unobvious way, it is physically different
from the machine without that program; its memory elements are differently
arranged); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
9
Appeal 2008-4454
Application 10/624,728

pump to reduce costs. (FF 6). In addition, Cox teaches that a single vacuum
pump may be used to process a wafer in one chamber while the other
chamber begins to pump down. (FF 7; Ans. 12). Thus, Cox teaches
processing pump throughout the entirety of each chamber’s processing
phase, despite Appellant’s arguments to the contrary. (Rep. 7, 8, and 10).
Accordingly, Cox’s processing systems provide both advantages of the
presently claimed processing system. Appellant has not provided sufficient
evidence that processing systems containing a single vacuum pump with the
computer configured as claimed provide any unexpected advantages over
Cox’s processing systems in view of the teachings of Kahn. Therefore, we
agree with the Examiner that the location of the down time in the operational
sequence would have been an obvious variation in optimizing the processing
system. See In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 692 (CCPA 1946) (in the absence
of unexpected results, the ordering of process steps is prima facie obvious).
Moreover, although Cox states that simultaneous pumping on each
chamber may be accomplished through the use of long vacuum lines, the
potential interaction between each of the chambers in a single vacuum pump
system during simultaneously pumping would have provided incentive for
one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the computer to pump each
chamber separately. (See FF 7). This would definitively prohibit any
unwanted interaction between the two chambers and eliminate the need for
long vacuum lines. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740 (“When a work is available in
one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt
variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103 likely bars its
patentability”). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Cox in view of Khan
10
Appeal 2008-4454
Application 10/624,728

suggests that the sequence to which the computer is configured would have
been within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art in optimizing
the processing system for processing a particular wafer. (Ans. 7 and 8).
Appellant’s argument that Kahn provides generalized teachings that
do not suggest the specific computer configuration presently claimed is
unpersuasive. Appellant cites our recent decision in Ex Parte Beresford, No.
2007-2322, 2008 WL 111202 (BPAI, Jan. 9, 2008) for support. However, in
that case, the Examiner had provided no rationale to support the rejection
other than a quotation from the reference. Beresford, 2008 WL 111202, at
*4. Here, in addition to the Examiner’s citation to specific passages in
Khan, the Examiner also provides the rationale of process automation,
equipment economization, and operation optimization. (Ans. 7). Moreover,
the Examiner’s rationale is supported in the references. Cox states that the
overhead and processing times may be adjusted to reduce wait times. (FF
8). In addition to the passages cited by the Examiner, Khan states that
processing sequences are “associated with individual substrates, groups of
substrates or entire cassettes of substrates.” (FF 11). Khan also states that
sequences “employ scheduling algorithms to optimize substrate throughput,
chamber utilization and minimize deadlocks.” (FF 11). Therefore, both
references support the Examiner’s finding that processing sequences may be
varied to optimize the processing system. Appellant has not provided
sufficient evidence to rebut the Examiner’s finding that the optimization of
the processing system for a particular application would have included
adjusting the computer configuration to fall within the configuration as
presently claimed.
11
Appeal 2008-4454
Application 10/624,728

Appellant further contends that optimization to the claimed computer
configuration would not have been obvious because Cox did not recognize
all the characteristics of the actual operation sequences taught in the patent,
namely that Cox’s “zero overhead” systems actually experience down time.
(See Rep. 8). To that end, Appellant’s Specification states that the
throughput rate “in certain situations” may be less than theoretically
possible, “implying that the preparation phase can take slightly longer than
the processing step.” (FF 1). As a result, Appellant argues that Cox teaches
away from the presently claimed sequence, because one would sacrifice the
time efficiency of Cox’s “zero overhead” system by configuring the
computer as presently claimed. (Rep. 8 and 9). We are not persuaded by
Appellant’s argument for several reasons.
First, Appellant’s acknowledgment that down time in Cox’s systems
does not occur in all situations indicates that the processing conditions
depend on the specific application and are within the skill of one of ordinary
skill in the art. Second, Appellant’s statement that the preparation phase is
longer than the processing phase is inconsistent with the conditions Cox
discloses in order to achieve “zero overhead.” Cox states:
To reach peak optimization, the robotic transfer overhead
plus pump and vent overhead time should be less than the total
active wafer processing time…In this mode, a near 100%
equipment utilization condition for active process is achieved
versus the typical situation of 30% utilization or even less for
short process times. (Col. 8, ll. 54-59). (Emphasis added).

From this passage it is clear that for Cox’s “zero overhead” process, the
process time must be greater than the preparation time. Appellant’s
depiction of Cox fails to employ Cox’s “zero overhead” mode, because the
12
Appeal 2008-4454
Application 10/624,728

preparation time is longer than the processing time. Third, Cox states that
“zero overhead” is one mode of the invention. Cox expressly recognizes
that down time occurs as Cox refers to the overhead as being “near zero”
throughout the patent, acknowledging that overhead time exists in some
applications. (FF 9). Thus, Cox discloses other modes besides “zero
overhead” in processing applications according to his invention. In such
modes, the other advantages of the process system such as elimination of
redundant costs and increasing system throughput taught by Cox would still
be realized. (FF 10). Therefore, we are not persuaded that Cox teaches
away from the presently claimed process system configuration.

CONCLUSION
In light of the above discussion, Appellant has failed to demonstrate
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 12 and 18-25 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Cox in view of Khan.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 12 and 18-25 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

tc

KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSEN & BEAR LLP
2040 MAIN STREET
FOURTEENTH FLOOR
IRVINE, CA 92614
13