Ex Parte Yang

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 25, 2005

10153718 (B.P.A.I. May. 25, 2005)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte Jen-Yuan Yang
__________
Appeal No. 2005-0713
Application No. 10/153,718
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before PAK, KRATZ and TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner’s refusal to
allow claims 1-5, 11, and 12, which are all of the claims pending
in this application.
Appeal No. 2005-0713
Application No. 10/153,719
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal is directed to a plasma
processing apparatus for processing a microelectronic substrate
with enhanced plasma control (specification, paragraph 14). The
invention uses a radio frequency powered circuit having a minimum
of two adjustment capacitors interposed between a decoupling
capacitor and a radio frequency powered electrode (specification,
paragraph 15).
As a preliminary matter, we note appellant’s statement on p.
5 of the brief that the claims do not stand or fall together.
However, only claim 11 is argued separately with respect to the
examiner’s first and third stated rejection. Therefore, for
purposes of this appeal, we select claim 1 as representative of
claims 1-3, 5, and 12 grouped on appeal as in the examiner’s first
and third stated rejection and we decide the propriety of the
examiner’s rejections of those claims based on representative
claim 1 pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7). Claim 4 separately
rejected. Thus, claim 4 is separately considered. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claims 1, 4, and 11 which are reproduced below.
1. A plasma processing apparatus comprising:
a reactor chamber,
Appeal No. 2005-0713
Application No. 10/153,719
Page 3
a radio frequency powered electrode contained
within the reactor chamber;
a radio frequency power circuit powering the radio
frequency powered electrode, wherein the radio frequency
power circuit comprises:
a radio frequency power source separated from the
radio frequency powered electrode by a decoupling
capacitor in series; and
a minimum of two adjustment capacitors interposed
between the decoupling capacitor and the radio frequency
powered electrode, one terminal of each of the
adjustment capacitors being electrically connected with
one terminal of the decoupling capacitor and the other
terminal of each of the adjustment capacitors being
connected to ground.
4. The apparatus of claim 3 wherein the plasma
etching apparatus comprises a plasma reactant gas ring
assembled to the radio frequency powered electrode.
11. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the decoupling
capacitor is a single decoupling capacitor.
REFERENCES
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Nakano 6,270,618 Aug. 7, 2001
Singh 6,042,687 Mar. 28, 2000
Nguyen 5,244,730 Sep. 14, 1993
Gesche 5,140,223 Aug. 18, 1992
Appeal No. 2005-0713
Application No. 10/153,719
Page 4
REJECTIONS
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:
(1) Claims 1-3, 5, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Gesche.
(2) Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gesche in view of Singh.
(3) Claims 1-3, 5, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakano in view of Nguyen.
(4) Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nakano and Nguyen in view of Singh.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments and evidence
advanced by the appellant and the examiner in the brief and the
answer in support of their respective positions. This review has
led us to conclude that the examiner’s rejections (1) and (2) are
well founded. Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s rejections
(1) and (2) for the reasons set forth in the answer and below,
however we reverse the examiner’s rejections (3) and (4).
Appeal No. 2005-0713
Application No. 10/153,719
Page 5
I. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1-3, 5, and 11-12 over Gesche.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as well
as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the recited
functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data
Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.);
cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and Associates,
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). The law of
anticipation only that the claims on appeal "read on" something
disclosed in the reference (see Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,
713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984)).
With respect to claim 1, we refer to page 4 of the answer
regarding the examiner’s position in this rejection. As found by
the examiner (answer, page 4), Gesche teaches in Figure 1 a high
frequency generator (1), which corresponds to the claimed radio
frequency power source, separated from the radio frequency powered
electrode (7) by a capacitor (14), which corresponds to the
claimed decoupling capacitor, and two variable capacitors (9, 13),
Appeal No. 2005-0713
Application No. 10/153,719
Page 6
which correspond to the claimed adjustment capacitors, interposed
between the high frequency generator (1) and the radio frequency
powered electrode (7), one terminal of each of the adjustment
capacitors (9, 13) being electrically connected with one terminal
of the capacitor (14).
The appellant argues (brief, page 6) Gesche does not teach “a
minimum of two adjustment capacitors . . . [where] one terminal of
each of the adjustment capacitors [is] electrically connected with
one terminal of the decoupling capacitor” as required by claim 1.
Appellant argues that in Figure 1 of Gesche, the adjustment
capacitor (9) cannot be electrically connected to the decoupling
capacitor (14) because the decoupling capacitor (11) effectively
decouples the adjustment capacitor (9). We disagree.
In the instant case, Gesche clearly teaches in Figure 1 that
the adjustment capacitors (9, 13) are electrically connected to
the decoupling capacitor (14). Merely because Gesche teaches
(col. 2, ll. 45-68) a second decoupling capacitor (11) is
interposed between the first decoupling capacitor (14) and the
adjustment capacitor (9) does not negate the fact that the first
decoupling capacitor (14) is capable of being electrically
connected to variable capacitors (9).
Appeal No. 2005-0713
Application No. 10/153,719
Page 7
1 We note that each of capacitors (14), (11) and (8) of Gesche are fixed
capacitors located in series with the RF power source and electrode. thus,
those capacitors of Gesche represent decoupling capacitors as claimed by
appellant. See brief, page 6, item (d) for appellant’s definition of a
decoupling capacitor. Appellant has not offered any evidence or persuasive
argument to dispute the examiner’s finding that capacitor (14) of Gesche
represents a decoupling capacitor as claimed.
Appellant argues (brief, page 7) since Gesche does not
designate whether capacitor (14), (11), or (8) is the decoupling
capacitor, it is plausible that Gesche might have intended either
of Gesche’s capacitors (11) or (8) as a decoupling capacitor.
Therefore, appellant argues, Gesche does not meet the claim 1
limitation requiring “a minimum of two adjustment capacitors . . .
[where] one terminal of each of the adjustment capacitors being
electrically connected with one terminal of the decoupling
capacitor” if capacitors (11) or (8) are considered as the
decoupling capacitor. We disagree with that argument. As stated
supra, Gesche clearly teaches in Figure 1 that the adjustment
capacitors (9, 13) are electrically connected to the decoupling
capacitor (14).1 Moreover, claim 1 uses open “comprising” language
and does not exclude additional capacitors (11) and/or (8) of
Gesche.
With respect to claim 11, appellant argues (brief, page 8)
that Gesche does not teach the claim limitation “wherein the
decoupling capacitor is a single decoupling capacitor.” While we
Appeal No. 2005-0713
Application No. 10/153,719
Page 8
agree with the appellant that Gesche teaches three decoupling
capacitors (Figure 1, items 8, 11, and 14 and col. 3, ll. 1-15),
we disagree with the appellant in that Gesche does teach the
claimed limitation. Claim 1 requires “a minimum of two adjustment
capacitors interposed between the decoupling capacitor and the
radio frequency powered electrode.” While Gesche teaches in
Figure 1 three decoupling capacitors (8, 11, and 14), only one
decoupling capacitor (14) is positioned so that a minimum of two
adjustment capacitors (13 and 19) are interposed between the
decoupling capacitor (14) and radio frequency powered electrode
(7).
II. § 103(a) rejection of claim 4 over Gesche in view of Singh.
With respect to claim 4, appellant does not dispute the
examiner’s finding (brief, page 6) of obviousness over Gesche in
view of Singh other than arguing that Gesche does not teach the
claim 1 limitation “a minimum of two adjustment capacitors . . .
[where] one terminal of each of the adjustment capacitors being
electrically connected with one terminal of the decoupling
capacitor.” For the reasons stated supra, we affirm.
Appeal No. 2005-0713
Application No. 10/153,719
Page 9
III. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-3, 5, and 11-12 over Nakano
in view of Nguyen and the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 4
over Nakano and Nguyen in view of Singh.
The examiner has found (answer, page 6) that Nakano teaches
all of the representative claim 1 elements except the matching
network having the claimed “decoupling capacitor.” To remedy this
deficiency, the examiner relies on Nguyen to teach a matching
network that includes a decoupling capacitor and concludes that it
would have been obvious to modify Nakano to use a decoupling
capacitor in order to minimize the reflected power. Id. In
rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner bears the
initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed.
Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223
USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In order to satisfy this burden,
the examiner must show that some objective teaching in the prior
art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in
the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re Fine, 837 F.2d
1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Appellant
argues (brief, pp. 10 and 11) that the examiner has not
established the requisite motivation to combine Nakano with
Appeal No. 2005-0713
Application No. 10/153,719
Page 10
Nguyen. The examiner rebuts (answer, page 9) this argument by
asserting that the motivation is “to minimize reflected power.”
We find appellant’s argument persuasive.
Nakano teaches (col. 2, ll. 20-30 and col. 4, ll. 3-10) a
novel way to clean a reaction chamber in order to avoid switching
out the band eliminator by varying the variable capacitor so that
the impedance reaches a local maximum value. Implicit in this
teaching is the desire to enhance the reflected power, as argued
by appellant at page 11 of the brief. Absent some evidence of a
motivation to minimize the reflected power by incorporating a
decoupling capacitor in the plasma processing apparatus of Nakano,
we cannot agree that a prima facie case of obviousness has been
established. In this regard, the examiner bears the burden of
explaining why minimizing reflected power would be advantageous in
the system of Nagano. Merely asserting that Nguyen employs a
blocking capacitor to minimize reflected power in the system of
Nguyen does not explain why such a result would be desirable in
the apparatus of Nakano, wherein a cleaning function at a maximum
impedance value would be desired. Accordingly we reverse this
rejection.
Appeal No. 2005-0713
Application No. 10/153,719
Page 11
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-3, 5, and 11-
12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Gesche and to
reject claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Gesche in view of Singh is affirmed. The decision of the examiner
to reject claims 1-3, 5, and 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nakano in view of Nguyen and to reject
claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakano
and Nguyen in view of Singh is reversed.
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
PETER F. KRATZ )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
CATHERIN TIMM )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2005-0713
Application No. 10/153,719
Page 12
TUNG & ASSOCIATES
838 W. LONG LAKE ROAD
SUITE 120
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48302