Ex Parte Williams et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 31, 2009

09942330 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 31, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL WILLIAMS
and MICHAEL BARTHMAN
____________

Appeal 2008-4421
Application 09/942,330
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided:1 March 31, 2009
____________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, PETER F. KRATZ, and
CATHERINE Q. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.

TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the Decided Date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2008-4421
Application 09/942,330

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-14 and 21-24. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Chemical reactions occurring during the etching of the surface of
semiconductors can release various gaseous by-products into the etch reactor
(Spec. 1:10-21). Typically, a device such as a wet scrubber is used to
remove the gaseous by-products (Spec. 1:21-22). The problem is that some
gaseous by-products contained in the effluent can precipitate out in the pipes
prior to reaching the wet scrubber and obstruct the pipes (Spec. 2:2-5).
Moreover, the effluent can corrode the stainless steel components of the
scrubber (Spec. 2:10-12). Appellants claim an apparatus for abating
effluent, i.e., an apparatus for removing such gaseous by-products (Spec.
1:5-7). Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A process effluent abatement arrangement, comprising:

an enclosure which defines an interior void;

a first partition having a first orifice defined therein, said first partition
being positioned within said interior void such that (i) said first partition
divides said interior void into a first chamber and a second chamber and (ii)
said first orifice is in fluid communication with said first chamber and said
second chamber;

a gas connector which has (i) a passageway defined therethrough and
(ii) a gas port in fluid communication with said passageway, said
passageway (A) having an inlet and an outlet and (B) being in direct fluid
communication with said first chamber of said enclosure, said gas port being
downstream of said inlet and upstream of said outlet;

Appeal 2008-4421
Application 09/942,330

3
a gas dispenser in direct fluid communication with said second
chamber of said enclosure; and

an exit port in fluid communication with said interior void.

The Examiner maintains, and Appellants request review of, the
following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
A. The rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 10, and 21-24 as unpatentable over
Notman (US 4,311,671, issued Jan. 19, 1982) in view of Posa (US
4,747,367, issued May 31, 1988);
B. The rejection of claims 7 and 11 over Mundt (US 5,137,701, issued
Aug. 11, 1992) in view of Notman and Posa;
C. The rejection of claim 9 over Notman, Posa and further in view of
McGinness (US 5,384,051, issued Jan. 24, 1995); and
D. The rejection of claims 12-14 over Notman, Posa, Mundt, and
McGinness.
II. DISPOSTIVE ISSUES
There are three independent claims (claims 1, 11, and 22), and each is
subject to a different contention by Appellants. The issues arising are:
1) Did the Examiner reversibly err in rejecting claim 1 by failing to
provide an adequate reason for replacing the gas connector (conduit
34) of Notman with the manifold assembly (222) of Posa;
2) Did the Examiner reversibly err in finding that Notman describes a
“first orifice” that has the structure required by claim 22; and
3) Did the Examiner reversibly err in rejecting claim 11 by failing to
provide a legally sufficient reason for incorporating the synthesis
reactor of Notman into the apparatus of Mundt?
Appeal 2008-4421
Application 09/942,330

4
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
Notman describes a synthesis reactor for conducting exothermic
catalytic gas-phase reactions such as ammonia or methanol synthesis
reactions (Notman, col. 1, ll. 4-6).
Figures 1 and 3 of Notman are reproduced below:

Figure 1 is a sectional elevation of a “hot wall” synthesis reactor vessel
described by Notman (Notman, col. 6, l. 50). Figure 3 is an enlarged section
plan showing the gas flow path between the catalyst beds of Figure 1
(Notman, col. 6, ll. 52-54).

Appeal 2008-4421
Application 09/942,330

5
The reactor shown in Figure 1 contains three small catalyst beds 12A,
12B, and 12C and a large catalyst bed 14 (Notman, col. 6, ll. 59-60). Each
small bed is supported on flat grids 16A, 16B, and 16C respectively and
charged with particulate catalyst up to the level shown by the dotted lines
(Notman, col. 6, ll. 61-64).
Notman splits the synthesis gas into four lines and inputs it through a
main gas inlet at the top (34) and through spargers 30, 28A, and 28B
(Notman, col. 8, ll. 41-44; Fig. 4). The gas entering through main gas inlet
34 is heated to slightly above catalyst inlet temperature in the space
surrounding the tubes of heat exchanger 40 (Notman, col. 8, ll. 25-29). The
gas then exits feed holes 32 and its temperature is regulated by colder gas
exiting sparger 30 (Notman, col. 8, ll. 27-29; Fig. 1). From there, the gas
proceeds through catalyst bed 12A and is heated by the exothermic reaction
in the bed (Notman, col. 8, ll. 29-30). As shown in Figure 3, the gas then
travels through plate 16A and into the annular gap between sparger 28A and
pipe 26 where it is cooled by the colder gas exiting the sparger (Notman, col.
7, ll. 4-9; col. 8, ll. 17-22; Fig. 3).2 The gas then proceeds through the other
small catalyst beds, through plate 16C, upwards through the annular space
between tubes 26 and 42 to heat exchanger 40 where it is cooled and to
catalyst bed 14 whether it undergoes further reaction and leaves through exit
50 (Notman, col. 8, ll. 31-38; col. 7, ll. 32-39; Fig. 1).
Posa describes a gas mixing manifold that directs gas from a number
of different sources into the chamber of a chemical vapor deposition process

2 It is clear that “sparger 36” as used in column 8, line 20 is intended to read
“sparger 28A” as column 7, line clearly refers to sparger 28A and column 7,
lines 22-26 indicates that “36” references catalyst emptying pipes 36A, 36B,
and 36C.
Appeal 2008-4421
Application 09/942,330

6
(Posa, col. 1, ll. 13-15; col. 2, ll. 26-30). The manifold’s purpose is to
precisely control the reaction gas flows to obtain multilayer structures of
extremely thin layers and sharp transitions between layers (Posa, col. 1, ll.
15-18; col. 2, l. 51 to col. 3, l. 25). Thin layers with sharp transitions are
achieved by a manifold that can simultaneously switch the gas flows back
and forth between an outlet and a vent (Posa, col. 3, ll. 34-37).
Figure 3 of Posa, the Figure relied upon the Examiner, is reproduced
below:

Figure 3 of Posa depicts a cross-sectional view of a gas manifold
(Posa, col. 4, ll. 15-17).

The manifold of Figure 3 includes valves 202, 204. The valves are
activated simultaneously to switch either the reactive gas flow or
nonreactive gas flow (see arrows exiting valve members 210, 212) into the
process chamber 16 while the other gas flows into the vent chamber 18
(Posa, col. 7, ll. 9-13). The manifold also includes a skirt purge line 214 for
directing a nonreactive gas between the exterior wall 216 and the other
quartz wall 220 of the vent chamber 18 (col. 7, ll. 20-23). At the other end,
Appeal 2008-4421
Application 09/942,330

7
the apparatus includes a common carrier manifold 222 which directs equal
carrier gas flows 124 to each of the vent paths 115, 122, and the process path
116 (col. 7, ll. 26-30).
Mundt describes an apparatus inserted into a gas line of, for example,
a low pressure manufacturing operation (col. 4, ll. 50-52). It is particularly
constructed to help remove unwanted corrosive gases, such as chlorine and
fluorine based gases, from the flow line (col. 4, ll. 53-57). It is particularly
adapted for use in the semiconductor industry to remove the gaseous by-
products of plasma etching and plasma assisted deposition (Mundt, col. 4,
ll. 63-66). The apparatus is an effluent trap (shown as reaction chamber 18
in Figs. 1-3; col. 5, ll. 23-28), and reduces or eliminates the corrosive gases
by causing the by-product gas to interact with reactant gas, a reactive
element 76 (e.g., iron or zirconium mesh for chlorine and fluorine based
corrosives), and a condensation element 76 upon which condenses the
unwanted products (col. 8, ll. 12-54). The reaction occurs within a plasma
(col. 5, l. 65 to col. 6, l. 2; col. 6, ll. 30-31, col. 8, ll. 24-31).

III. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious
merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently,
known in the prior art.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1734
(2007). “[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 2008-4421
Application 09/942,330

8
V. ANALYSIS
With regard to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Notman’s sparger 30
is a gas port within the meaning of the claim, and acknowledges that sparger
30 is not “upstream of said outlet,” but finds that Posa teaches a manifold
assembly 222 including gas ports located upstream as claimed (Ans. 4-5).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace Notman’s gas connector
(conduit 34) with Posa’s gas connector (manifold 222) to add plural reactive
gas source inlets to Notman’s gas connector (Ans. 5).
Notman and Posa are directed to different problems and function in
different ways. Notman is directed to a synthesis reactor for producing
methanol or ammonia. It is designed to handle large volumes of feedstock
gas. The gas is circulated within the heat exchanger 40 and pipes 26 and 42
for particular heating and cooling purposes. Posa, on the other hand, is
directed to supplying gas for creating extremely thin and sharply defined
layers in a chemical vapor deposition process. Posa is concerned with
controlling multiple gas flows of small volume with great precision. Given
the wide disparities and function, purpose, and scale between the gas
apparatus of Notman and that of Posa, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner did not provide a convincing line of reasoning supporting the
proposed modification (Br. 10-11).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner reversibly erred in
rejecting claim 1. The Examiner did not advance an adequate reason for
replacing the gas connector (conduit 34) of Notman with the manifold
assembly (222) of Posa.
Appeal 2008-4421
Application 09/942,330

9
With regard to claim 22, which is also rejected over Notman in view
of Posa, the Examiner finds that Notman’s central opening in grid plate 16A
is a “first orifice” within a first partition as claimed (Ans. 18). However,
claim 22 requires the first orifice have “a first central axis that is
substantially aligned with the longitudinal axis of the enclosure, said first
central axis being unobstructed such that gas can pass from the first chamber
to the second chamber through the first central axis.” In other words, claim
22 requires the orifice within the partition be open to gas passage at its very
center.
Notman’s plate 16A (first partition) has a central opening, but tubes
26 and 42 occupy the center of the opening to create an annular orifice
through which the gas travels. Therefore, the gas of Notman passing from
the first chamber to the second chamber travels only through the annular
opening around the central axis. This is shown in Figure 3 (reproduced
above) by the arrows arcing around gas spargers 28A. The gas does not pass
from the first chamber to the second chamber “through the first central axis”
as claimed because tubes 26 and 42 occupy the central axis area.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner reversibly erred in
finding that Notman describes a first orifice of the structure required by
claim 22.
Turning to claim 11, the Examiner additionally relies upon Mundt
along with Notman and Posa to reject this claim. Mundt describes an
effluent trap inserted into the gas line of, for example, an etch apparatus.
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to replace Mundt’s process effluent abatement arrangement
Appeal 2008-4421
Application 09/942,330

10
(effluent trap) with Notman’s catalytic gas reactor to process effluent from
Mundt’s etch apparatus (Ans. 8).
We cannot agree with the Examiner’s reasoning. Mundt’s effluent
trap is designed for a low volume gas application, and uses completely
different reaction means (plasma assisted reaction of corrosive gas such as
chlorine and fluorine based gases with condensation) than Notman. Notman
is a large scale methanol or ammonia synthesis reactor. There is simply no
rational reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would employ the large
scale catalytic bed reactor of Notman in the semiconductor processing
system of Mundt.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner reversibly erred in
rejecting claim 11 by failing to provide a legally sufficient reason for
incorporating the synthesis reactor of Notman into the apparatus of Mundt.
As all of the rejections rely upon the references in the capacity
discussed above, the deficiencies discussed above affect all the rejections.
There is no need to discuss McGinness as the Examiner’s reliance on this
reference does not cure the deficiencies discussed above.

VI. CONCLUSION
We do not sustain any of the rejections maintained by the Examiner.
Appeal 2008-4421
Application 09/942,330

11

VII. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED

cam

LSI CORPORATION
1621 BARBER LANE
MS: D-105
MILPITAS CA 95035