Ex Parte Kamimura et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 19, 2009

10231073 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 19, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MASAKI KAMIMURA
and TAKASHI NAKAO
____________

Appeal 2008-5866
Application 10/231,073
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided:1 February 20, 2009
____________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, 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 CFR § 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 2008-5866
Application 10/231,073

Statement of the Case
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1-3, and 32-44. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. 2
Appellants’ invention relates to a semiconductor device
manufacturing system. The system comprises a film forming device
including a film forming chamber, a temperature controller including a
temperature detector and a heater controller, and a system controller. The
system controller includes a film formation end time determining device
configured to determine an end time of the film formation. (Spec. 3-4).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A semiconductor device manufacturing system comprising:
a film forming device including a film forming chamber and a
heater, the film forming chamber configured to accommodate a
substrate and form a film on the substrate, the heater configured
to heat the substrate;
a temperature controller including a temperature detector and a
heater controller, the temperature detector configured to detect a
temperature of at least one of inside and outside of the film
forming chamber, the heater controller configured to control the
heater to heat the substrate at a predetermined temperature
according to the temperature detected by the temperature
detector; and
a system controller including a correlation coefficient
determining device configured to determine a correlation
coefficient of temperature based on the difference between time-
basis data of a measured temperature change detected by the
temperature detector and, time basis of a reference temperature

2 In rendering this Decision we have considered the Appellants’ arguments
presented in the Appeal Brief dated August 16, 2007 and the Reply Brief
dated January 14, 2008.
2
Appeal 2008-5866
Application 10/231,073

change associated with film formations previously performed by
the film forming device, and configured to determine an end time
of the film formation, before the temperature detected by the
temperature detector has become substantially constant and after
heating the substrate by the heater has started, based on data
obtained by using the correlation coefficient.

The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting the
appealed subject matter:
Shah US 5,517,594 May 14, 1996
Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as unpatentable
over Shah. Claims 1-3 and 32-44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Shah.
We determine the following Findings of Fact (FF) from the record
presented in this appeal:
1. Shah teaches semiconductor device manufacturing that
utilizes a controlled reactive environment that comprises
reactor controllers which attempt to achieve the desired
end of run physical parameters for the structures formed on
the silicon wafers by monitoring and adjusting the
temperature and gas flows of the thermal reactor during
deposition. (col. 1, ll. 32-43).
2. Shah discloses thermocouples inserted through the heating
elements of the thermal reactor are utilized to provide
online temperature measurements to the reactor
controllers. (col. 1, ll. 44-49).
3
Appeal 2008-5866
Application 10/231,073

3. Shah further disclosed that prior reactor controllers
typically employ proportional integral derivative (PID)
methods to control the temperature of the silicon wafers.
The PID reactor controllers adjust heater power control
signals to the thermal reactor to maintain a set point
temperature according to a predetermined process control
recipe. (col. 1, ll. 50-59).
4. Shah discloses drawbacks to the PID reactor controllers
include inaccurate control of the thermal gradients that
occur along the major axis of the thermal reactor and
radially on the silicon wafers. As a result, integrated
circuit chips located at differing radial positions on a given
silicon wafer are exposed to differing temperatures during
thermal processing. (col. 2, ll. 9-19).
5. Shah proposes to overcome these drawbacks by utilizing a
system for controlling a thermal reactor that determines a
reactor model that indicates a thermal behavior of the
thermal reactor and a thermal behavior of a wafer load
contained in the thermal reactor. (col. 2, ll. 59-63).
6. Shah discloses the reactor model accounts for interaction
among a set of heating zones of the thermal reactor. The
online reactor model is determined from the reactor model.
The online reactor model estimates the thermal behavior of
the wafer load based upon an online input power to the
4
Appeal 2008-5866
Application 10/231,073

thermal reactor and upon an online temperature indication
from the thermal reactor. (col. 4, ll. 7-19).
7. The multi-variable controller minimizes temperature
deviations for the wafer load from a predetermined
temperature recipe or time varying trajectory. The time
varying trajectory is determined to minimize end of the run
variations in film properties and reduced cycle time. (col.
4, ll. 20-27).
8. Shah FIGS. 3a-3b “illustrate alternative embodiments of
the application of the reactor power test signals to the
thermal reactor in a nonreactive environment while
synchronous reactor and wafer load responses are
gathered.” (col. 3, ll. 27-32).
9. Shah FIG. 6 illustrates the computational models that
relate the end of run physical wafer parameters such as
oxide thickness, poly thickness, and diffused dopant
density to the wafer temperatures and gas flows on the
wafer load during processing. (col. 10, ll. 8-13). Shah
does not indicate what gases were utilized in developing
the model.
10. Shah FIG. 7 “illustrates a closed loop online
implementation of a time varying set point trajectory that
minimizes end of run wafer parameter variation.” (col. 11,
ll. 42-44).
5
Appeal 2008-5866
Application 10/231,073

11. Shah teaches the reactor model and the deposition model
72 are used to compute a time varying set point trajectory
that minimizes variation in end of run parameters on the
wafer load 12. (col. 11, ll. 38-41)
The Examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie
case of anticipation. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326-27 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that “each and every element
as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described,
in a single prior art reference.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed.
Cir. 1999).
Inherency may not be established by probabilities or possibilities,
i.e., [t]he mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of
circumstances is not sufficient. In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA
1981).
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires
a determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the
level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations. See
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). “[A]nalysis [of
whether the subject matter of a claim is obvious] need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim,
for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l. Co. v.
Teleflex Inc.,127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41 (2007), see also DyStar Textilfarben
GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1361
6
Appeal 2008-5866
Application 10/231,073

(Fed. Cir. 2006) (“The motivation need not be found in the references
sought to be combined, but may be found in any number of sources,
including common knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the nature of the
problem itself.”); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969)
(“Having established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner
could then properly rely, as put forth by the solicitor, 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.’”).

The § 102 rejection
The Examiner found that Shah describes a semiconductor device
manufacturing system. The system comprises a film forming device
including a film forming chamber, a temperature controller including a
temperature detector and a heater controller, and a system controller. (Ans.
3-4). The Examiner contends that Shah inherently describes a system
controller including a correlation coefficient determining device
configured to determine a correlation coefficient of temperature based on
the difference between time-basis data of a measured temperature change
detected by the temperature detector and, time basis of a reference
temperature change associated with film formations previously performed
by the film forming device. (Ans. 4).
Appellants contend that the semiconductor device manufacturing
system of Shah does not anticipate the claimed invention.
7
Appeal 2008-5866
Application 10/231,073

The issue before us is whether Appellants have shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We
answer this question in the affirmative. Therefore, WE REVERSE.3
We agree with Appellants that the semiconductor device
manufacturing system of Shah does not anticipate the claimed invention.
Appellants recognize that Shah describes a thermodynamic model;
however, Appellants assert that the model is based on determinations made
in a non-reactive environment. (App. Br. 14). Appellants assert that
claim 1 recites a “correlation coefficient of a temperature based on . . . a
reference temperature change associated with film formations [sic,
formulations] previously performed by the film forming device” which is
not described by Shah. (App. Br. 14). The Examiner has not pointed to
any portion of the Shah reference that expressly or inherently describes a
thermodynamic model based upon temperature change associated with
film formulations previously performed by the film forming device.
Inherency may not be established by probabilities or possibilities, i.e., the
mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances
is not sufficient. Oelrich, 666 F.2d at 581.

The § 103 rejection
Appellants contend that the Examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness. Appellants also contend that Shah fails to teach

3 We select independent claim 1 as representative of the rejected subject
matter.
8
Appeal 2008-5866
Application 10/231,073

or suggest a “correlation coefficient of a temperature based on . . . a
reference temperature change associated with film formations [sic,
formulations] previously performed by the film forming device” as recited
in claim 1. (App. Br.14, 16-17).
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability.4 However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
The issue presented is: Did Appellants identify reversible error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, and 32-44 under § 103? We
answer this question in the negative. Therefore, WE AFFIRM.
Appellants argue that Shah fails to teach or suggest a “correlation
coefficient of a temperature based on . . . a reference temperature change
associated with film formations [sic, formulations] previously performed
by the film forming device” as recited in claim 1.
Shah teaches a semiconductor device manufacturing that utilizes a
controlled reactive environment that comprise reactor controllers which
attempt to achieve the desired end of run physical parameters for the
structures formed on the silicon wafers by monitoring and adjusting the
temperature and gas flow of the thermal reactor during deposition. Shah

4 Appellants’ arguments (and, therefore, our analysis) focus on
independent claim 1. Appellants have also provided a discussion of
independent claims 35 and 39. We will address claims 35 and 39 to the
extent that they have been separately argued. Claims 2-3, 32-34, 36-38
and 40-44 will stand or fall with claim 1.
9
Appeal 2008-5866
Application 10/231,073

utilizes computational models that relate the end of run physical wafer
parameters such as oxide thickness, poly thickness, and diffused dopant
density to the wafer temperatures and gas flows on the wafer load during
processing. Shah exemplifies in one embodiment computational models
determined utilizing nonreactive gases. Shah does not expressly disclose
the use of reactive gas to produce film formulations for utilization in
computational models. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have reasonably expected that utilization of data from previous film
formulations would have aided in the formulation of more accurate
computational models. The utilization of data from previous film
formulations would have aided in the objective of Shah to develop a
controlled reactive environment comprised of reactor controllers that
attempt to achieve the desired end of run physical parameters for the
structures formed on the silicon wafers.
Regarding claims 35 and 39, Appellants assert that these claims are
patentable for the reasons presented in the discussion of claim 1.
Appellants also state that “[a]s noted by Appellants in the Interview, Shah
is silent with regard to these features of claims 35 and 39. For at least
these additional reasons, no prima facie case of obviousness has been
established and claims 35 and 39 are therefore also allowable over Shah.”
(App. Br. 17). The Examiner acknowledged that the features of claims 35
and 39 were not expressly disclosed in Shah. However, the Examiner
asserted that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art to optimize the correlation coefficients of Shah to achieve the
objectives of reducing the end of run physical parameter variations. (Ans.
10
Appeal 2008-5866
Application 10/231,073

14). Appellants have not refuted the Examiner’s position in the responsive
Brief. (see Reply Br. generally). Moreover, because we do not find
Appellants’ arguments persuasive as to independent claim 1, it follows that
we shall also affirm the rejection of claims 35 and 39 as advanced by the
Examiner.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we affirm
the § 103 rejection presented in this appeal.
ORDER
The rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 USC § 102(b) is reversed. The
rejection of claims 1-3, and 32-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

ssl
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001-4413

11