Ex Parte SAKATA et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 24, 2018

13951913 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/951,913 07/26/2013 Clinton SAKATA
44257 7590 07/26/2018
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP- -Applied Materials
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
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.
20691US 8093
EXAMINER
BELL, SPENCER E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1711
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/26/2018 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):
Pair_Eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CLINTON SAKATA, HUI CHEN,
JIM K. ATKINSON, TOMOHIKO KITAJIMA, and
BRIAN J. BROWN
Appeal2017-009339
Application 13/951,913
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, BRIAND. RANGE, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant appeals2 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1-17 and 22. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.
1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed July 26, 2017 ("Spec."),
the Final Office Action dated December 21, 2016 ("Final Act."), the
Advisory Action dated March 13, 2017, the Appeal Brief filed April 26,
2017 ("Appeal Br."), the Examiner's Answer dated June 15, 2017 ("Ans."),
and the Reply Brief filed June 26, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2 Appellant is the Applicant, Applied Materials, Inc., which, according to the
Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-009339
Application 13/951,913
The subject matter of the claims relates to a double sided buff module
for cleaning both sides of a substrate after chemical mechanical polishing
(CMP). Spec. ,r 16. Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix
with emphasis to highlight disputed limitations, is illustrative of the claims
on appeal.
1. A buff module comprising:
a housing having an interior volume;
a plurality of drive rollers arranged to rotate a substrate
within the interior volume on a substantially horizontal axis;
a pair of buff heads disposed in the housing, each buff
head rotatable on an axis substantially aligned with the
horizontal axis and movable to a position substantially
parallel with the horizontal axis.
Appeal Br. 21 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following § 103 rejections on appeal:
Rejection I: Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-17, and 22 as unpatentable over
Frost et al. (US 6,616,509 B 1, issued September 9, 2003) ("Frost") and
Nakao et al. (US 2014/0242885 Al, published August 28, 2014) ("Nakao");
Rejection II: Claim 4 as unpatentable over Frost, Nakao, and
Maekawa et al. (US 5,860,181, issued January 19, 1999) ("Maekawa"); and
Rejection III: Claim 9 as unpatentable over Frost, Nakao, and
Thrasher et al. (US 5,475,889, issued December 19, 1995) ("Thrasher").
2
Appeal2017-009339
Application 13/951,913
Rejection I
DISCUSSION
Appellant's arguments regarding the first-stated ground of rejection
focus on claim 1. Appeal Br. 9--14. In addition, Appellant presents separate
substantive arguments for the patentability of dependent claims 2, 5, and 12.
Id. at 14--17. We address Appellant's arguments regarding each of claims 1,
2, 5, and 12 below under separate subheadings.
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Frost's Figure 1 teaches a wafer preparation
apparatus that includes housing 2 with an interior volume. Final Act. 5. The
Examiner finds that Frost's Figure 1 lA, reproduced below, teaches the
wafer preparation apparatus further includes a plurality of drive rollers 6
arranged to rotate substrate W on a horizontal axis, and a pair of buff
heads 12 within the housing. Id.; Frost 13:20-49, 58---60, 14:10-26;
Fig. llA.
3
Appeal2017-009339
Application 13/951,913
Figure 1 lA provides a detailed illustration of an embodiment of
Frost's wafer preparation apparatus.
The Examiner acknowledges that Frost's buff heads "are configured
as rollers and rotate on axes perpendicular to a rotation axis of a substrate."
Adv. Act. 2. Thus, the Examiner finds that Frost does not teach that its buff
heads are rotatable on an axis aligned with the horizontal axis of the drive
rollers and movable to a position substantially parallel with the axis. Final
Act. 5. The Examiner relies on Nakao for such teaching.
The Examiner finds that Nakao's Figure 11, reproduced below,
teaches a substrate processing apparatus having buff head 142 "rotatable on
an axis aligned with the rotation axis of a substrate and movable to a
position parallel with the rotation axis of the substrate" via articulating
arm 144. Final Act. 5; Ans. 4.
4
Appeal2017-009339
Application 13/951,913
FIG. 11
Figure 11 provides a perspective view ofNakao's third cleaning unit.
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to
substitute Nakao's buff head 142 and articulating arm 144 for Frost's buff
pads 8, 8', 12, and 12' "to provide a targeted, pen-like scrubbing to the
surface of [Frost's] substrate." Ans. 4--5 (citing Frost 3:41-65,
Nakao ,r,r 67-70).
Appellant argues that the combination of Frost and Nakao fail to
teach, suggest, or disclose "a pair of buff heads disposed in the housing,
each buff head rotatable on an axis substantially aligned with the horizontal
axis and movable to a position substantially parallel with the horizontal
axis," as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 9. Specifically, Appellant argues
that Nakao's single pen sponge 142 (buff head) is oriented on a vertical axis.
Id. at 11. Therefore, Appellant contends that Nakao cannot teach or suggest
modifying Frost's buff heads to be rotatable on an axis substantially aligned
with the horizontal axis of the drive rollers. Id.
5
Appeal2017-009339
Application 13/951,913
Additionally, Appellant argues that the Examiner has not articulated a
motivation for combining Frost and Nakao or explained what problem
would be solved by combining the references. Appeal Br. 13. Further,
Appellant argues that Examiner's proposed modification "would require a
complete redesign of the mechanism supporting and articulating [Frost's]
buff head." Id. at 13-14.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive of reversible error in the
rejection of claim 1. Claim 1 's horizontal axis is the axis of rotation of the
recited drive rollers, however, because the drive rollers rotate a substrate, as
Appellant's admit, "the horizontal axis [of the drive rollers] is aligned with
the center of the substrate." Appeal Br. 14. The Examiner finds, and
Appellant does not dispute, that Frost teaches a buff module that includes a
plurality of drive rollers ( 6) on a substantially horizontal axis to rotate a
substrate about on the same substantially horizontal axis. Compare
Final Act. 5 (citing Frost Fig. 1 lA), and Ans. 4 (citing Frost Figs. 1-2), with
Appeal Br. 9-14, and Reply Br. 2-7. Frost's buff heads rotate about an axis
perpendicular, rather than parallel to the horizontal rotation axis of the drive
rollers, which the Examiner acknowledges. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds,
however, that Nakao's Figure 11 teaches a cleaning unit configured to clean
the polished substrate that includes pen sponge 142 (buff head) that rotates
about an axis parallel to the axis of rotation of the substrate and is moved
along an arc via articulating arm 144. Ans. 4.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner has
not identified a rationale as to why one skilled in the art would have sought
to modify Frost. Appeal Br. 13. Where two known alternatives are
interchangeable for a desired function, an express suggestion to substitute
6
Appeal2017-009339
Application 13/951,913
one for the other is not needed to render a substitution obvious. In re Fout,
675 F.2d 297,301 (CCPA 1982); see also In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1340
(Fed. Cir. 1997) ("Because the applicants merely substituted one element
known in the art for a known equivalent, this court affirms [the rejection for
obviousness]."). As the Examiner explains, the buff heads employed in
Frost's and Nakao's apparatuses (Frost's polishing pads 12, Nakao's pen
sponge 142) are used to clean a substrate after chemical mechanical
polishing (CMP). Ans. 4--5 (citing Frost 3:41---65; Nakao ,r 67). Thus, we
agree with the Examiner's determination that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute Nakao's pen sponge 142 and
articulating arm 144 for Frost's polishing pads 8, 8', 12, and 12' "to provide
a targeted, pen-like scrubbing to the surface of [Frost's] substrate." Ans. 5.
Consequently, the combination of Frost and Nakao teach or suggest a buff
head module that includes "a pair of buff heads ... each buff head rotatable
on an axis substantially aligned with the horizontal axis and movable to a
position substantially parallel with the horizontal axis." We, therefore,
sustain the rejection of claim 1 over Frost and Nakao.
Because Appellant does not present separate arguments for the
patentability of claims 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-17, and 22, we also affirm the
rejection of those claims over Frost and Nakao. See Appeal Br. 9-17.
Brief.
Claim 2
Claim 2 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal
2. The buff module of claim 1, comprising:
a plate disposed in the interior volume and oriented
perpendicular with and offset from the horizontal axis,
7
Appeal2017-009339
Application 13/951,913
the plate positioned between the buff heads to keep the
buff heads from touching when the buff heads are
translated away from the horizontal axis.
Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.).
The Examiner construes claim 2's plate as "a flat disk-like substrate."
Ans. 5. The Examiner then finds that Frost teaches a plate (substrate W)
oriented perpendicular with and offset from the horizontal axis and
positioned between the buff heads that could keep the buff heads from
touching. Final Act. 6.
Appellant argues that the combination of Frost and Nakao does not
teach, suggest, or disclose "a plate disposed in the interior volume and
oriented perpendicular with and offset from the horizontal axis, the plate
positioned between the buff heads to keep the buff heads from touching
when the buff heads are translated away from the horizontal axis," as recited
in claim 2. Appeal Br. 14.
Appellant's argument is persuasive of reversible error. We agree with
Appellant that the plate in claim 2 is a structural component of the claimed
buff module. Frost's wafer Wis not a component of its preparation
apparatus. Rather, it is simply a substrate on which the apparatus is utilized.
Thus, contrary to the Examiner's finding, Frost's wafer Wis not "a plate" as
recited in claim 2. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 2 over
Frost and Nakao.
Because claims 3 and 4 depend from claim 2, we likewise do not
sustain the rejection of those claims over Frost and Nakao.
8
Appeal2017-009339
Application 13/951,913
Claim 5
Claim 5 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal
Brief.
5. The buff module of claim 1, comprising:
a pad conditioner disposed in the interior volume and
oriented perpendicular with and offset from the horizontal axis,
the pad conditioner positioned to condition each of the buff
heads simultaneously.
Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that Frost teaches pad conditioners 116 to
condition each pad simultaneously. Final Act. 7 (citing Frost 12: 15-17;
Fig. 3). Frost's Figure 1, which depicts pad conditioners 116, is reproduced
below.
9
Appeal2017-009339
Application 13/951,913
tJJkj. I
Figure 1 is an end elevation view of Frost's wafer preparation
apparatus.
Appellant argues that Frost does not teach or suggest the pad
conditioners for conditioning "each of the buff heads simultaneously" as
recited in claim 5. Appeal Br. 16.
Appellant's argument is persuasive of reversible error. Although
Frost teaches that its apparatus can include retractable pad conditioners 116
pivotally mounted to the inside walls of housing 2 adjacent to each polishing
pad, on this record the Examiner has not established that Frost's polishing
conditioners condition each of Frost's buff heads, as modified by Nakao,
simultaneously. Nor has the Examiner established a reason for modifying
10
Appeal2017-009339
Application 13/951,913
Frost's polishing conditioner to do so. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection
of claim 5 over Frost and Nakao.
Because claim 6 depends from claim 5, we also do not sustain the
rejection of claim 6 over Frost and Nakao.
Claim 12
Claim 12 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the
Appeal Brief.
12. The buff module of claim 11, wherein the housing
comprise:
a partition configured to separate the interior volume of
the housing into regions configured to separate the different
fluids provided to opposite sides of the substrate disposed on
the drive rollers.
Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that Frost teaches a substrate W, which can
function as a partition that separates the interior volume into regions to
separate different fluids provided to opposite sides of the substrate. Final
Act. 8 ( citing Frost Fig. 1 ).
Appellant argues that the combination of Frost and Nakao fail to
teach, suggest or disclose "a partition configured to separate the interior
volume of the housing into regions configured to separate the different fluids
provided to opposite sides of the substrate disposed on the drive" as recited
in claim 12. Appeal Br. 16.
Appellant's argument is persuasive of reversible error. As with
claim 2 's plate, claim 12 's partition is a structural component of the claimed
buff module. Frost's wafer Wis not a component of its preparation
apparatus. Rather, it is simply a substrate on which the apparatus is utilized.
11
Appeal2017-009339
Application 13/951,913
Thus, contrary to the Examiner's finding, Frost's wafer Wis not "a
partition" as recited in claim 12. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 12 over Frost and Nakao.
Rejection 2
Claim 4 depends from claim 2. As discussed above, we do not sustain
the rejection of claim 2 over Frost and Nakao. The Examiner does not rely
on Maekawa, the additional reference relied upon to reject claim 4, to cure
the deficiencies of Frost and Nakao discussed above. Thus, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 4 over Frost, Nakao, and Maekawa.
Rejection 3
Although presented under a separate subheading, Appellant does not
present additional substantive arguments for the patentability of claim 9.
Claim 9 depends from claim 1, and as with claim 1, Appellant contends that
"Frost in view of Nakao fail to teach, suggest or disclose 'a pair of buff
heads disposed in the housing, each buff head rotatable on an axis
substantially aligned with the horizontal axis and movable to a position
substantially parallel with the horizontal axis." Appeal Br. 19 (emphasis
omitted). Appellant also contends that "Thrasher cannot suggest a
modification to Frost in view of Nakao which can cure this defect." Id.
( emphasis omitted).
Because we determine that the combination of Frost and Nakao teach
or suggest all the recitations of claim 1 's buff module, we sustain the
rejection of claim 9 for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to
claim 1.
12
Appeal2017-009339
Application 13/951,913
DECISION
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Frost and Nakao is affirmed
as to claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-17, and 22, and reversed as to claims 2, 3, 5,
6, and 12.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Frost, Nakao, and Maekawa
of claim 4 is reversed.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Frost, Nakao, and Thrasher
of claim 9 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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
13