Ex Parte Colvin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 14, 2016

12948309 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/948,309 11/17/2010
29393 7590 03/16/2016
ESCHWEILER & AS SOCIA TES, LLC
NATIONAL CITY BANK BUILDING
629 EUCLID A VE., SUITE 1000
CLEVELAND, OH 44114
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Neil K. Colvin
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
EATNP299US 3630
EXAMINER
OSENBAUGH-STEW AR, ELIZA W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2881
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/16/2016 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):
Docketing@eschweilerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NEIL K. COL VIN and TSEH-JEN HSIEH
Appeal2014-007322
Application 12/948,309
Technology Center 2800
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner
finally rejecting claims 1-5 and 7-20, all the pending claims in the present
application. Claim 6 is canceled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to an ion implant system for
improving performance and extending lifetime of an ion source. See
Abstract.
Appeal2014-007322
Application 12/948,309
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An ion implantation system for improving performance
and extending lifetime of an ion source in an ion implanter
compnsmg:
an ion source assembly comprising a dopant gas
controller, a co-gas controller, and an ion source chamber, the dopant
gas controller operatively controlling the rate and flow of a fluorine-
containing dopant gas source into the ion source chamber, and the co-
gas controller operatively controlling the rate and flow of a co-gas
into the ion source chamber, wherein the operative control of the rate
and flow of the co-gas into the ion source chamber is adjusted during
operation of the ion implantation system, the co-gas reacting with the
fluorine-containing dopant gas;
a beam line assembly that receives the ion beam from the
ion source and processes the ion beam; and
a target location that receives the ion beam from the
beam line assembly.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
RI. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Perel (US 7;586;109 B2; Sept
8, 2009) and Ziegler (US 2003/0234371 Al, Dec. 25, 2003); and
R2. Claims 10, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Perel, Ziegler, and Mori (US 6,215,245 B 1, Apr. 10,
2001).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-5 and 7-20
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings of
Perel and Ziegler teach or suggest "the rate and flow of the co-gas into the
ion source chamber is adjusted," as set forth in claim 1?
2
Appeal2014-007322
Application 12/948,309
Appellants contend "that combining the teachings of Perel et al. and
Ziegler is improper because of the disparate manner in which the systems
operate and the problems being solved by the different systems preclude one
of ordinary skill from having a reasonable likelihood of success" (App. Br.
5) (emphasis omitted). Appellants further contend that "[t]he purpose for
which Ziegler adjusts a flow rate of gas and co-gas is directed narrowly to
thin film formation ... None of the resultant thin film benefits associated
with the control scheme of Ziegler have any applicability to the ion
implantation system of Perel et al." (id. at 6).
The Examiner finds that "Perel et al. discloses that two (or in some
embodiments three) gases can be combined in an ion source ... the amount
of co-gas needed would also differ" and "adding adjustability to a system or
method is generally considered to be obvious" (see Ans. 2-3). The
Examiner further finds that "[b ]oth methods take gases and ionize them in an
ion source, then outputs ions to be used in semiconductor manufacturing
processes" (Ans. 3). We agree with the Examiner.
We begin by noting that Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's
reliance on Ziegler regarding the claimed "the operative control of the rate
and flow of the co-gas into the ion source chamber is adjusted." Rather,
Appellants dispute the comb inability of Zeigler' s teachings with Perel' s
teachings.
On this record, we see no error in the Examiner's combining Perel's
technique for improving and extending the lifetime of an ion source with
Zeigler' s method for generating reactive ions. Although Appellants contend
that the purpose for Ziegler's adjustments of flow rate is narrowly directed
to thin film formation (see App. Br. 6), we highlight that Ziegler specifically
3
Appeal2014-007322
Application 12/948,309
states that its' invention relates particularly to "the delivery of gas to
physical or chemical vacuum or vapor chambers" (i-f l) and "[ t ]he scope of
this patent is ... specifically with the mixture, feedback and regulation of
gases fed into an ion source and physical or chemical vapor chamber
systems" (i-f 2). In other words, Ziegler's purpose does not appear to be as
narrow as Appellants suggest, but rather looks at the broader concept of the
delivery, mixture, feedback, and regulation of gases into a chamber system.
In fact, Appellants fail to direct our attention to any disclosure in Ziegler that
limits its application to only thin film chemistry (see Ziegler i-f 17).
Similarly, Perel discloses "a dopant gas controller for releasing a
predetermined amount of dopant gas from a dopant gas source into an ion
source chamber" (4:48-50). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that both
Ziegler's and Perel's "methods take gases and ionize them in an ion source"
(Ans. 3).
Furthermore, there is no requirement that the problem solved by the
secondary reference be discussed by the primary reference to apply the
teachings of the secondary reference in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Supreme Court has held that in analyzing the obviousness of combining
elements, a court need not find specific teachings, but rather may consider
"the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in
the art" and "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would employ." See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007). To be nonobvious, an improvement must be "more than the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
functions," and the basis for an obviousness rejection must include an
4
Appeal2014-007322
Application 12/948,309
"articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness." Id.
Here, the Examiner has found actual teachings in the prior art and has
provided a rationale for the combination. Specifically, the Examiner finds
"[i]t would have been obvious ... to modify the ion implantation system of
Perel et al. to include the continuous flow control of Ziegler so that the rate
of ion production could be increased when needed and the rate of
scavenging increased when metal build-up is heavy" (see Final Act. 4).
Having established that this knowledge was in the art, the Examiner could
then rely on a conclusion of obviousness "from common knowledge and
common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific
hint or suggestion in a particular reference." See In re Bozek, 416 F.2d
1385, 1390 (CCP A 1969). Here, the Examiner applies common knowledge
and common sense in finding that "[a]dding the step of adjusting the flow
rates of the different gases would allow a person having ordinary skill in the
art to optimize the method in relation to the condition of the system" (Ans.
2-3).
Accordingly, we find that the Examiner has provided sufficient
motivation for modifying Perel with the teachings of Ziegler, and we will
sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 1-5 and 7-20.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejections.
5
Appeal2014-007322
Application 12/948,309
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6