Ex Parte White

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 29, 2011

11565400 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 29, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/565,400 11/30/2006 JOHN M. WHITE 011402 DISPLAY/AKT 4130
44257 7590 10/31/2011
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX
3040 POST OAK BOULEVARD, SUITE 1500
HOUSTON, TX 77056
EXAMINER
MILLER, JR, JOSEPH ALBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1715
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte JOHN M. WHITE
________________

Appeal 2010-007189
Application 11/565,400
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, TERRY J. OWENS, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 2, 3, 6-12, and 14-23. Claims 24
through 41, the other claims pending in this application, stand withdrawn
from consideration by the Examiner.
We REVERSE.

Appeal 2010-007189
Application 11/565,400

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal is directed to a plasma enhanced
chemical vapor deposition method. Claim 3 is illustrative:
3. A plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition method,
comprising:
providing a fresh, unrecirculated processing gas to a plasma enhanced
chemical vapor deposition chamber, the processing gas comprising a
diluting gas and a deposition gas;
performing a plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition process;
exhausting the processing gas from the chamber; and
recirculating at least a portion of the processing gas through gas
reconditioning hardware that includes at least one item selected from the
group consisting of a particle trap; a particle filter, and combinations thereof,
wherein the recirculated processing gas joins with the fresh, unrecirculated
processing gas at a location between the chamber and a remote plasma
source.

The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1) claims 3, 9, 11, 12, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sukigara (US 4,460,673, issued Jul. 17, 1984) in view of
Roth (US 6,406,759 B1, issued Jun. 18, 2002);
2) claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sukigara
and Roth, and further in view of Tanabe (US 2001/0052513 A1, published
Dec. 20, 2001);
3) claims 6-8 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sukigara and Roth, and further in view of Kawasaki (US 2002/0134439 A1,
published Sep. 26, 2002);
4) claims 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sukigara and Roth, and further in view of Won (US 2006/0134496 A1,
published Jun. 22, 2006);
Appeal 2010-007189
Application 11/565,400

3
5) claims 3, 9, 10, 12, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mori (US 5,711,814, issued Jan. 27, 1998) in view of
Roth;
6) claims 2 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Mori in view of Lin (US 2003/0196684 A1, published Oct. 23, 2003); and
7) claims 6-8, 11, and 16-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Mori and Roth, and further in view of Kawasaki.

Rejections (1) and (5)
ISSUE
Did Appellant establish that the Examiner reversibly erred in
determining that the applied prior art references would have rendered
obvious a plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition method that includes
the step of joining the recirculated processing gas with the fresh,
unrecirculated processing gas at a location between the chamber and the
remote plasma source as required by claims 3 and 16 within the meaning of
§ 103? We decide this issue in the affirmative.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of unpatentability. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
“[R]ejections 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.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Appeal 2010-007189
Application 11/565,400

4
FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF)
1. Sukigara teaches a plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition
process including the steps of introducing SiH4 reaction gas into a
reaction chamber 1 having an electrode 32 and a substrate 31 and
striking the SiH4 with an in situ plasma to deposit a silicon film 47 on
the substrate. (Sukigara, col. 5, ll. 30-35, col. 2, ll. 20-25, and Fig. 4).
Sukigara teaches that the SiH4 reaction gas that did not decompose is
exhausted from the chamber, and recycled back to the reaction
chamber 1 through feedback circuit 41. (Sukigara, col. 5, ll. 16-27,
40-60, and Fig. 4).
2. Mori teaches a method for forming a film using a rotary electrode
having a gas circulatory system 80 to provide recirculated gas directly
to reaction vessel 70 without combining the recirculated gas with
fresh, unrecirculated process gas from gas supplies 86a-d. (Mori, Fig.
15 and col. 13, l. 15 to col. 14, l. 25).
3. Roth teaches a remote exposure reactor 600 that recirculates airflow
carrying an active species through the plasma panels 608 and then
through remote exposure chamber 616. (Roth, col. 16, ll. 34-45 and
Fig. 6).

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in maintaining the rejection
because none of the applied prior art references teaches or would have
suggested joining the recirculated processing gas with the fresh,
unrecirculated processing gas at a location between the chamber and a
Appeal 2010-007189
Application 11/565,400

5
remote plasma source as required by claims 3 and 16. (App. Br. 11-13 and
21-22). We agree.
While the Examiner alleges (Ans. 4, 5, and 9) that the applied prior art
references would have rendered obvious the claimed inventions, the
Examiner has failed to direct us to any credible evidence or reasoning to
show where the disputed claim step (i.e., joining the recirculated processing
gas with the fresh, unrecirculated processing gas at a location between the
chamber and a remote plasma source) is taught or suggested.
In this regard, Sukigara teaches recycling SiH4 reaction gas directly
back to the reaction chamber 1 through feedback circuit 41. (FF 1).
Similarly, Mori teaches providing recirculated gas directly to a reaction
vessel 70 without combining the recirculated gas with fresh, unrecirculated
process gas from gas supplies 86a-d. (FF 2).
While Roth teaches a remote exposure reactor 600 having plasma
panels 608 (corresponding to the claimed remote plasma source as alleged
by the Examiner) separate from remote exposure chamber 616, Roth teaches
that its recirculated airflow first travels through the plasma panels 608 and
then through the remote exposure chamber 616. (FF 3).
Thus, it is unclear on this record why, absent hindsight, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have employed the step of joining recirculated
processing gas with fresh, unrecirculated processing gas at a location
between the chamber and a remote plasma source as required by claims 3
and 16. Indeed, in reference to our above discussion, Roth plainly teaches
that the recirculated airflow is fed upstream of Roth’s plasma panels 608
(corresponding to the claimed remote plasma source as alleged by the
Examiner) and remote exposure chamber 616.
Appeal 2010-007189
Application 11/565,400

6
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection.

Rejections (2) through (4), (6), and (7)
The Examiner relies on the same factual findings and determinations
discussed above and does not provide any additional findings or
determinations as to how any of the other applied prior art references would
have satisfied these disputed claim features. Therefore, for the reasons
stated above, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections (2) through (4), (6), and
(7).

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.

REVERSED

cam