Toshiba Mitsubishi-Electric Industrial Systems Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 11, 2022

2021001027 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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. 15/521,645 04/25/2017 Yoichiro TABATA 13763US01 6354 154930 7590 01/11/2022 XSENSUS LLP 100 Daingerfield Road Suite 402 Alexandria, VA 22314 EXAMINER CROWELL, ANNA M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1716 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/11/2022 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): Faith.Baggett@xsensus.com Sandy.Miles@Xsensus.com anaquadocketing@Xsensus.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte YOICHIRO TABATA, KENSUKE WATANABE, and SHINICHI NISHIMURA Appeal 2021-001027 Application 15/521,645 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. REN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Toshiba Mitsubishi-Electric Industrial Systems Corporation.” Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-001027 Application 15/521,645 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An electric discharge generator and a power supply device of electric discharge generator comprising: a radical gas generation apparatus that generates a radical gas from a source gas using a dielectric barrier discharge; a process chamber apparatus that is connected to said radical gas generation apparatus, accommodates a target object, and performs, on said target object, a process in which said radical gas is used; and a power supply device that applies an alternating current voltage to said radical gas generation apparatus, wherein said process chamber apparatus includes a table on which said target object is placed, said table causing said target object to rotate, said radical gas generation apparatus includes: a plurality of discharge cells that cause said dielectric barrier discharge; and a source gas supply unit that supplies said radical gas generation apparatus with said source gas, each of said plurality of discharge cells includes: a first electrode portion including a first electrode member common to all of the plurality of discharge cells; a second electrode portion that is opposed to said first electrode portion and includes a second electrode member fomed only in its respective discharge cell; and an opening formed in the first electrode portion and connected to the inside of said process chamber and facing said target Appeal 2021-001027 Application 15/521,645 3 object placed on said table, said radical gas generated from said source gas using said dielectric barrier discharge being output through said opening, and said plurality of discharge cells include first discharge cell that is located at a first distance from a rotation center of said target object in a plan view and second discharge cell that is located at a second distance from said rotation center of said target object in a plan view, said first distance is shorter than said second distance, said power supply device includes a power supply circuit configuration that receives input of one alternating current voltage and controls output of n-phase alternating current voltages, applies each of said n-phase alternating current voltages to corresponding one of said plurality of discharge cells, and variably controls, according to distances of said plurality of discharge cells from said rotation center of said target object in a plan view, amplitudes of said alternating current voltages to be applied to said plurality of discharge cells, where n represents the number of said plurality of discharge cells. Appeal Brief 23-24 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The references relied upon by the Examiner are: Appeal 2021-001027 Application 15/521,645 4 Name Reference Date Keras US 2006/0251550 Al Nov. 9, 2006 Mallick US 2010/0081293 Al Apr. 1, 2010 Koshiishi US 2013/0157469 Al Jun. 20, 2013 Kusuhara US 2014/0186990 Al Jul. 3, 2014 Watanabe US 10,450,654 B2 Oct. 22, 2019 Manabu JP 2011-154973 A Jan. 28, 2010 REJECTIONS Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1, 5-8 103 Manabu, Mallick, Koshiishi 2, 3 103 Manabu, Mallick, Koshiishi, Keras 4 103 Manabu, Mallick, Koshiishi, Kusuhara 1-8 Double patenting OPINION Double Patenting Rejection Appellant does not appeal the double patenting rejection of claims 1- 8. Final Act. 8-14; Appeal Br. 10. The double patenting rejection is summarily affirmed. Claim 1 In rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over Manabu, Mallick, and Koshiishi, the Examiner finds, among other claim elements, that Manabu teaches a power supply circuit configuration that . . . controls output of n-phase alternating current voltages, applies each of said n- phase alternating current voltages to corresponding one of said plurality of discharge cells, and variably controls, according to distances of said plurality of discharge cells . . . said alternating current voltages to be applied to said plurality of discharge Appeal 2021-001027 Application 15/521,645 5 cells, where n represents the number of said plurality of discharge cells. Final Act. 3 (citing Manabu ¶¶ 52, 75). The Examiner acknowledges that Manabu “is silent on the power supply device that variably controls amplitude of the alternating current voltages to the plurality of discharge cells” and cites paragraph 30 of Koshiishi for the teaching. Id. at 4. In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner further states that “power supply device 441 [of Koshiishi] variably controls the amplitude of the alternating current voltages of each electrode arranged at different distances” and that “each electrode 451 a-d is distanced apart and the power 441 supplied to each electrode is independently controlled.” Ans. 7-8. Appellant argues that the Examiner reversibly erred because neither Manabu nor Koshiishi teaches or suggests the recited power supply circuit configuration that “variably controls, according to distances of said plurality of discharge cells from said rotation center of said target object in a plan view, amplitudes of said alternating current voltages to be applied to said plurality of discharge cells.” Appeal Br. 16. Appellant argues that the same current is applied in all of the electrodes in Manabu. Id. Appellant argues that “Koshiishi merely discloses that the control parameter of the plurality of electrode pairs includes amplitude of power.” Id. at 17. Paragraph 52 of Manabu, cited by the Examiner in support of this particular claim limitation, provides that “[d]ielectric barrier discharge is made to occur by applying alternating current voltage between electrodes in the plasma treatment apparatus.” This paragraph further states: “If frequency is 1 kHz or less, when switching on high discharge electricity, it will be necessary to make impressed electromotive force high, and Appeal 2021-001027 Application 15/521,645 6 problems, such as a power supply increase in cost and enlargement of the equipment accompanying the increase in the distance for insulation, will arise.” Paragraph 75 of Manabu, also cited by the Examiner in support of this particular claim limitation, mentions an “alternating-current-high-voltage power supply 13” which is “connected in parallel to” other components of the prior art apparatus. Paragraph 30 of Koshiishi, cited by the Examiner in support of this particular claim limitation, states that each of the electrodes “can be independently controlled with regard [to] any specification of the power supply, such as amplitude, frequency, voltage, duration, etc.” The record before us supports Appellant’s argument that the Examiner has not sufficiently explained why these cited portions of the prior art teach or suggest the recited power supply circuit configuration that “variably controls . . . amplitudes of said alternating current voltages to be applied to said plurality of discharge cells” and such control is performed “according to distances of said plurality of discharge cells from said rotation center of said target object in a plan view.” CONCLUSION The Examiner’s obviousness rejections are reversed. The Examiner’s double patenting rejection is affirmed. Appeal 2021-001027 Application 15/521,645 7 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 5-8 103 Manabu, Mallick, Koshiishi 1, 5-8 2, 3 103 Manabu, Mallick, Koshiishi, Keras 2, 3 4 103 Manabu, Mallick, Koshiishi, Kusuhara 4 1-8 Double patenting 1-8 Overall Outcome 1-8 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED