Ex parte Wang et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 28, 1999

07928642 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 28, 1999)

Application for patent filed August 13, 1992. According1
to appellants, this application is a continuation of
Application 07/537,445, filed June, 13, 1990; which is a
continuation of Application 06/944,492, filed December 19,
1986, now Patent No. 5,000,113.
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No.
33
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte DAVID NIN-KOU WANG,
JOHN M. WHITE, KAM S. LAW, CISSY LEUNG,
SALVADOR P. UMOTOY, KENNETH S. COLLINS,
JOHN A. ADAMIK, ILYA PERLOV, and DAN MAYDAN
____________
Appeal No. 95-2347
Application No. 07/928,6421
____________
HEARD: Mar. 8, 1999
____________
Before PAK, OWENS, and KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 95-2347 Page 2
Application No. 07/928,642
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
examiner’s refusal to allow claims 5 and 6 as amended after
the final rejection (see the amendment filed January 24, 1994,
and the advisory action dated February 3, 1994). Claims 7,
22, and 54-56, which are the only other claims remaining (non-
canceled) in this application, have been indicated as
allowable by the examiner.
BACKGROUND
The appellants' invention relates to a reactor for
processing wafers for use as semiconductor elements. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading
of exemplary claim 5, which is reproduced below.
5. A semiconductor processing reactor comprising:
a housing defining a chamber therein including an inlet
gas manifold oriented horizontally for supplying reactant
gases to process a wafer within the chamber and beneath said
manifold; the housing further including
a susceptor for supporting a wafer;
susceptor support means for holding the susceptor in a
horizontal orientation;
Appeal No. 95-2347 Page 3
Application No. 07/928,642
means for selectively moving the susceptor support means
vertically for positioning the susceptor and wafer parallel to
the gas manifold at a plurality of selected positions closely
adjacent the gas manifold, and further including
means for circulating fluid at a controlled temperature
within the gas inlet manifold so as to maintain the internal
surfaces of said gas manifold within a temperature range for
suppressing condensation, decomposition and reaction of gases
within said manifold and so as to maintain the external
surfaces of said gas manifold at a higher temperature than
said internal surfaces, said higher temperature sufficient to
prevent formation of particulates on said external surfaces.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Davies et al. (Davies) 4,313,783 February 2,
1982
Chen et al. (Chen) 4,534,816 August 13,
1985
Shibata et al. (Shibata) 4,563,240 January
7, 1986
Shioya et al. (Shioya) 4,625,678 December 2,
1986
Kanai 60-202937 October 14,
1985
(Japan)
Appeal No. 95-2347 Page 4
Application No. 07/928,642
Although the final rejection mailed October 21, 19932
inadvertently failed to list 35 U.S.C. § 102 in addition to 35
U.S.C. § 103 in the statement of the rejection of claims 5 and
6 as being unpatentable over Chen, the Answer contains a
statement of rejection which includes both 35 U.S.C. § 102 and
§ 103. Appellants did not request that the rejection be
denominated as a new ground of rejection. Rather, they argue
the rejection of claims 5 and 6 as unpatentable over Chen
based on both 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Shibata in view of Kanai, Davies, and
Shioya.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Shibata in view of Kanai, Davies, and Shioya
as above, and further in view of Chen.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
as unpatentable over Chen . 2
We make reference to the examiner's answer for the
examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the
appellants' brief (Paper No. 28, filed April 28, 1994) for the
appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Appeal No. 95-2347 Page 5
Application No. 07/928,642
We note that appellants have not furnished separate3
arguments regarding why claims 5 and 6 should not stand or
fall together with respect to this rejection. Nor have
appellants stated that these claims do not stand or fall
together. Accordingly, we consider these claims to stand or
fall together with respect to this rejection. See 37 CFR §
1.192(c)(5) (1993).
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we find that we are
in agreement with the examiner and will sustain the
rejections.
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 5 AND 6 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
According to the examiner (answer, page 5), Chen
describes the reactor structure defined by claims 5 and 6 . 3
In the
examiner's view, the structure required by the claimed "means
for circulating fluid..." has been taught by the gas manifold
cooling means of Chen (answer, page 5).
Appeal No. 95-2347 Page 6
Application No. 07/928,642
We note that appellants apparently agree with the
examiner's application of Chen to the claimed reactor
structure with the exception, according to appellants, that
Chen does not disclose maintaining the interior surfaces of a
gas manifold at a lower temperature than the temperature of
exterior surfaces of the manifold (brief, page 10). However,
appellants have not specifically pointed out how the claimed
structure, including the "means for circulating fluid...",
patentably differs from the structure of Chen that is being
relied upon by the examiner including the cooling fluid
circulating passageways 20, 22, 56, 66 and 68 described in
column 5 of Chen.
We agree with the examiner's determination that the
claimed and argued functional limitations regarding the
relative temperatures of the gas manifold surfaces do not
serve to patentably distinguish the underlying claimed
structure from that of Chen. Clearly, as suggested by the
examiner, the use of a plasma in the portion of the reactor of
Chen below electrode (12) to etch a wafer, as described by
Chen, would result in a
Appeal No. 95-2347 Page 7
Application No. 07/928,642
higher temperature adjacent the outer surfaces of the cooled
gas manifold/electrode (12) than the temperatures of inner
surfaces further removed from the plasma etching.
Based on the present record, we are in agreement with the
examiner's conclusion that the circulating means called for by
the claims do not structurally distinguish from the gas
manifold/electrode cooling structure of Chen. We note that
the claimed reactor has not been distinguished from the prior
art based on claimed structural differences. In this regard,
appellants argue possible distinctions in what the claimed
device may do in performing a particular temperature
maintenance operation (brief, page 10) rather than pointing
out any specific patentable differences in the claimed
structure itself. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb,
Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir.
1990) and In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848, 120 USPQ 528, 531
(CCPA 1959).
Accordingly, we agree with the examiner that the reactor
structure defined by appealed claims 5 and 6 would have been
anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or would have been rendered
Appeal No. 95-2347 Page 8
Application No. 07/928,642
obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by the disclosed reactor
structure
of Chen. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d,
1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67,
70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980).
REJECTION OF CLAIM 6 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
Next, we consider the rejection of claim 6 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata taken with Kanai,
Davies, Shioya, and Chen. We affirm based on the teachings of
Chen for the reasons discussed above. In this regard,
appellants' arguments at pages 9 and 10 of the brief are
primarily directed to a particular temperature maintenance
operation, which line of argument, in our view, is not
convincing for the reasons discussed above.
REJECTION OF CLAIM 5 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
We now turn to consideration of the rejection of claim 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata taken
Appeal No. 95-2347 Page 9
Application No. 07/928,642
Since we find that the teachings of Shibata, Kanai and4
Davies would have rendered the claimed invention herein
obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103, we find it
unnecessary to discuss Shioya in our decision.
with Kanai, Davies and Shioya. The examiner relies on Shibata
for describing a reactor with a chamber having a plasma
generation means for processing (etching) wafers that includes
the claimed structure including a gas manifold/electrode (12)
(fig. 1, col. 3, lines 10-17). The examiner acknowledges that
Shibata does not describe temperature control structure for
the gas manifold/electrode corresponding to the claimed "means
for circulating fluid..." (answer, page 3). Kanai and Davies
each disclose a plasma reactor used for etching that include
channels for circulating cooling fluid through passageways in
the electrodes (including gas manifold/electrodes) of a plasma
generator to prevent the electrodes from overheating (Kanai,
figures 9 and 10 and Davies, figure 3 and columns 3, 4 and
6) . From the above collective teachings of the prior art, the4
examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to provide the gas
manifold/electrode of Shibata with cooling media passageways
Appeal No. 95-2347 Page 10
Application No. 07/928,642
for circulating a cooling medium to control the gas
manifold/electrode temperature.
In our view, the provision of passageways for circulating
a cooling fluid in the gas manifold/electrode (12) of Shibata
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
prevent excess temperatures from developing in the
electrode/gas manifold of Shibata. Moreover, we agree with
the examiner's conclusions (answer, pages 5-7), for reasons
similar to those discussed above with regard to the rejection
over Chen, that the claimed functional use limitations
regarding the relative temperatures of the gas manifold
surfaces do not serve to patentably distinguish the underlying
claimed structure from that of the applied prior art. Thus,
based on the present record, we agree with the examiner's
conclusion that the claimed apparatus would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art from the combined
reference teachings.
Appellants argue that the reference (Shibata) "does not
disclose any non-plasma reactor at all" (brief, page 7). We
find this argument unconvincing. We note that Shibata
discloses use of a plasma generation means (10) in reaction
Appeal No. 95-2347 Page 11
Application No. 07/928,642
vessel (17). Likewise, both Kanai and Davies are directed to
reactors including plasma generation means.
Appellants appear to urge (brief, pages 7 and 8) that the
reason or motivation to modify Shibata advanced by the
examiner may be for a different purpose of preventing the
overheating of the electrodes as discussed by Kanai and
Davies, as opposed to solving the problems of the overheating
of gases passing through the gas manifold/electrode and/or the
problem of possible overcooling of outer surfaces thereof.
However, this does not detract from the combinableness of the
references. In this regard, it is not necessary that the
prior art teaches the same purpose as appellants' for arriving
at the claimed subject matter so long as a sufficient
suggestion for or motivation to do so is furnished. See In re
Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1900 (Fed. Cir.
1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991) and In re Lintner,
458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
Accordingly, for the reasons advanced by the examiner as
supplemented above, we agree with the examiner's conclusions
regarding the obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of the claimed
apparatus from the combined references teachings.
Appeal No. 95-2347 Page 12
Application No. 07/928,642
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner's rejections of
claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 are
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
CHUNG K. PAK )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
TERRY J. OWENS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
PETER F. KRATZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
tdc
Appeal No. 95-2347 Page 13
Application No. 07/928,642
Patent Counsel
Applied Materials, Inc.
P.O. Box 450A
Santa Clara, CA 95052
APPEAL NO. - JUDGE KRATZ
APPLICATION NO. 07/928,642
APJ KRATZ
APJ PAK
APJ OWENS
DECISION: AFFIRMED
Prepared By: TINA
DRAFT TYPED: 30 Jan 01
FINAL TYPED: