Applied Materials, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 9, 2020

2019006210 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2020)

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.
14/838,408 08/28/2015 Colin John DICKINSON 022304USA 1071
44257 7590 12/09/2020
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPLIED MATERIALS
24 GREENWAY PLAZA
SUITE 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
EXAMINER
NASSIRI MOTLAGH, ANITA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1734
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/09/2020 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 COLIN JOHN DICKINSON,
DUSTIN W. HO, and MONIQUE MCINTOSH
_______________
Appeal 2019-006210
Application 14/838,408
Technology Center 1700
_______________
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, GEORGE C. BEST, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 5–7, and 21–25 of Application

1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed Aug. 28, 2015 (“Spec.”)
of Application 14/838,408 (“the ’408 Application”); the Final Office Action
dated Dec. 28, 2018 (“Final Act.”); the Advisory Action dated Mar. 27, 2019
(“Advisory Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed Apr. 26, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the
Examiner’s Answer dated July 11, 2019 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed
Aug. 20, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Applied Materials, Inc. as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-006210
Application 14/838,408

2
14/838,408. See Reply Br. 1; Appeal Br. 7; Advisory Act. 1–2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter of the ’408 Application relates to an abatement
system for abating compounds produced in semiconductor processes. Spec.
¶ 2. According to the ’408 Application, semiconductor processing facilities
use process gases for a cleaning procedure following chemical vapor
deposition (CVD). Id. ¶ 3. The ’408 Application indicates these process
gases include perfluorocarbons (PFCs) or other halogen containing
compounds which are subject to regulatory requirements and environmental
and safety concerns. Id. These compounds must be abated or treated before
disposal. Id.
Claims 1 and 21 are representative of the ’408 Application’s claims
and are reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief
with key limitations emphasized.
1. An abatement system, comprising:
a foreline having a first end configured to couple to an
exhaust port of a vacuum processing chamber, wherein an
injection port is formed in the foreline;
a scrubber coupled to a second end of the foreline,
wherein there is no effluent burner or plasma source interfaced
with the foreline between the first end and the scrubber; and
an abating agent delivery system coupled to the injection
port, the abating agent delivery system comprising a boiler,
wherein the boiler is operable to produce vapor from a liquid
abating agent in response to a reduction of pressure within the
boiler caused by fluidly coupling an interior of the boiler to an
environment of the foreline.
Appeal 2019-006210
Application 14/838,408

3
21. An abatement system, comprising:
a foreline having a first end configured to couple to an
exhaust port of a vacuum processing chamber, wherein an
injection port is formed in the foreline;
a scrubber coupled to a second end of the foreline,
wherein there is no effluent burner or plasma source interfaced
with the foreline between the vacuum processing chamber and
the scrubber;
a vacuum pump disposed in the foreline between the
injection port and the scrubber;
an abating agent delivery system comprising a boiler
coupled to the injection port wherein the boiler is operable to
produce vapor from a liquid abating agent in response to a
reduction of pressure within the boiler caused by fluidly
coupling an interior of the boiler to an environment of the
foreline; and
a valve disposed between the abating agent delivery
system and the injection port, wherein the valve is operable to
lower a pressure within the boiler to vaporize the liquid abating
agent disposed within the abating agent delivery system.
Appeal Br. 33–34 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Name Reference Date
Shinagawa et al.
(“Shinagawa”)
US 6,115,538 Sept. 5, 2000
Arno et al.
(“Arno”)
US 2002/0159924 A1 Oct. 31, 2002
Hooshdaran et al.
(“Hooshdaran”)
US 2010/0258510 A1 Oct. 14, 2010
Dickinson et al.
(“Dickinson”)
US 2011/0135552 A1 June 9, 2011
Appeal 2019-006210
Application 14/838,408

4
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103:3, 4
1. Claims 1, 5, 7, and 24 over Arno in view of Hooshdaran, and
further in view of Shinagawa. Final Act. 3–8; Advisory Act. 2.
2. Claim 6 over Arno in view of Hooshdaran, Shinagawa, and further
in view of Dickinson. Final Act. 8–9; Advisory Act. 2.
3. Claims 1, 5–7, and 21–25 over Hooshdaran in view of Arno, and
further in view of Shinagawa. Final Act. 9–18; Advisory Act. 2.
DISCUSSION
Ground 1: Rejection of claims 1, 5, 7, and 24 as obvious over Arno in
view of Hooshdaran, and further in view of Shinagawa
The Examiner concludes that Arno in view of Hooshdaran, and
further in view of Shinagawa, would have rendered claims 1, 5, 7, and 24
obvious. Final Act. 3–8; Advisory Act. 2. Appellant argues the claims as a
group. Appeal Br. 8–15. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 5, 7,
and 24 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

3 Because this application was filed after the March 16, 2013, effective date
of the America Invents Act, we refer to the AIA version of the statutes.
4 The Examiner entered Appellant’s Amendment, which canceled claims 2–
4 and incorporated the limitations recited in these claims into independent
claim 1. Advisory Act. 2. Appellant’s entered Amendment also
incorporated the limitations recited in canceled claim 4 into independent
claim 21. Id. The Examiner’s maintained grounds for rejecting claims 1 and
21 incorporate the Final Office Action’s grounds for rejecting claims 2–4
and 4, respectively. Id.; Ans. 3–4.
Appeal 2019-006210
Application 14/838,408

5
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Arno discloses an
abatement system comprising: (i) a scrubber for removing acid gas
components, and (ii) a thermal oxidizer for removing organic and other
oxidizable components. Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner finds that
Hooshdaran also teaches an abatement system, which “may include one or
more of a scrubber, a thermal reactor, a hydrogenation reactor, or the like,”
depending on the effluent composition. Id. (citing Hooshdaran ¶¶ 3, 24, 43,
44). The Examiner finds Hooshdaran teaches, inter alia, that a thermal
reactor may burn saturated hydrocarbon effluents in oxygen for subsequent
safe disposal into the environment. Final Act. 4 (citing Hooshdaran ¶ 46).
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Arno’s system
by eliminating the thermal oxidizer if the effluent does not contain
hydrocarbons. Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner finds that removal of Arno’s
thermal oxidizer would have resulted in the direct coupling of the scrubber
to the foreline’s second end, as required by claim 1. Id. at 5. Arno’s thermal
oxidizer is an element whose presence and function may be omitted and
obvious if the function of the element is not desired, according to the
Examiner. Ans. 4–5 (citing MPEP § 2144.04(II)(A)).
Appellant contends that Hooshdaran fails to disclose or suggest any
instance in which thermal treatment of the effluent should not be included.
Appeal Br. 9. Appellant explains that Hooshdaran merely provides one
example when a thermal reactor would have been useful. Id. at 10.
Appellant argues that “Hooshdaran fails to teach a scrubber coupled to a
second end of the foreline, wherein there is no effluent burner . . . interfaced
with the foreline between the first end and the scrubber,” as required by
Appeal 2019-006210
Application 14/838,408

6
claim 1. Id. Appellant’s argument for patentability of claim 1 accuses the
Examiner of engaging in hindsight reconstruction. Id.
Appellant does not show reversible error by the Examiner in rejecting
claim 1 as obvious over Arno in view of Hooshdaran, and further in view of
Shinagawa.
It is well settled that the omission of a feature disclosed by the prior
art along with its attendant function or advantage as a matter of simplicity
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Thompson, 545 F.2d 1290, 1294 (CCPA 1976) (obvious to eliminate wax
pretreatment and its function); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d at 555 (deleting switch
member and its function was an obvious expedient); In re Marzocchi, 456
F.2d 790, 793 (CCPA 1972) (omitting paraffin and its function would not be
an unobvious expedient); In re Larson, 340 F.2d at 969 (obvious to dispense
with added cargo handling features of prior art); In re Keegan, 331 F.2d 315,
319 (CCPA 1964) (omitting suture holder and its function of guarding
against accidental displacement was obvious); and In re Porter, 68 F.2d 971,
973 (CCPA 1934) (no invention where omission of an element is attended
by a corresponding omission of the function performed by that element).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found
it obvious to modify Arno’s abatement system depending on the effluent
composition, including omission of a burner if oxidizing hydrocarbons is
unnecessary.
Appellant fails to show reversible error in asserting that the Examiner
engages in hindsight by “only picking and choosing . . . that Hooshdaran
does not include an effluent burner/thermal reactor.” Appeal Br. 10. While
“[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction
Appeal 2019-006210
Application 14/838,408

7
based upon hindsight reasoning,” “so long as it takes into account only
knowledge”—such as Arno’s and Hooshdaran’s combined teachings—
which was within a skilled artisan’s knowledge and “does not include
knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is
proper.” See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Such is
the case here.
We do not find persuasive Appellant’s proposal that we focus on
statements in the Specification, rather than on the claims in issue and the
specific prior art identified by the Examiner. See Reply Br. 2 (citing Spec.
¶ 18). Appellant argues that, unlike the Specification, Hooshdaran fails to
recognize that a hydrogen containing abating agent can react with atomic
fluorine, fluorine molecules, atomic chlorine, or chlorine molecules without
a thermal reactor. Id. Appellant argues that the Specification describes cost
reduction advantages conferred by the elimination of a thermal burner,
which Hooshdaran fails to recognize or even suggest. Id. (citing Spec. ¶ 18).
To render an invention obvious, the prior art does not have to address
the same problem addressed by a patent applicant. “In determining whether
the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular
motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls. What matters is
the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is
invalid under § 103.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419–20
(2007).
Thus, Hooshdaran’s silence with respect to inexpensively reacting
fluorine or chlorine with a hydrogen containing abating agent in the absence
of a thermal reactor is not dispositive. Furthermore, limitations not
appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self,
Appeal 2019-006210
Application 14/838,408

8
671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“[A]ppellant’s arguments fail from the
outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the
claims.”). Claim 1 does not recite a hydrogen containing abating agent for
fluorine or chlorine. See Appeal Br. 33 (Claims App.).
Appellant contends that the combined teachings of Arno, Hooshdaran,
and Shinagawa are silent regarding the boiler being operable to produce
vapor from a liquid abating agent in response to a reduction of pressure
within the boiler, which is caused by fluidly coupling an interior of the boiler
to an environment of the foreline. Appeal Br. 10, 11–12. Appellant argues
that Shinagawa’s objective includes elevating temperatures of a pipe system,
which are outside of a water tank. Id. at 12–14; Reply Br. 4.
We are not persuaded by these arguments because, “[t]he test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference,” but what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Claim 1, furthermore, is a structural claim, drawn to “[a]n abatement
system, comprising: . . . a foreline[,] . . . a scrubber coupled to a second end
of the foreline, . . . [and] an abating agent delivery system . . . comprising a
boiler” fluidly coupled to the foreline. See Appeal Br. 33 (Claims App.);
Spec. Fig. 1. An applicant is free to claim features either structurally or
functionally. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing
In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212 (CCPA 1971)). Claim 1 recites
“wherein the boiler is operable to produce vapor from a liquid abating agent
in response to a reduction of pressure within the boiler caused by fluidly
coupling an interior of the boiler to an environment of the foreline.” Appeal
Appeal 2019-006210
Application 14/838,408

9
Br. 33 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). A structure that is capable of
performing certain functions may be obvious in view of a prior art structure
that can likewise perform these functions. Parker Vision, Inc. v. Qualcomm
Inc., 903 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Final Office Action that the
applied prior art discloses the structural elements. See Final Act. 6–7; Ans.
5–7. The Examiner’s findings are reasonable that Shinagawa teaches a
system of providing steam to a vacuum system, which comprises fluidly
coupling an interior of a water tank to the environment of the vacuum
chamber. Final Act. 7 (citing Shinagawa Fig. 1). We agree with the
Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
fluidly couple an interior of Arno’s low pressure boiler to an environment of
the foreline “to achieve controlled temperature with less contamination and
stabilized steam flow” to the foreline, as suggested by Shinagawa. Ans. 7;
see Shinagawa 3:62–65. Arno’s system, as modified by Hooshdaran’s and
Shinagawa’s teachings, would have been capable of producing vapor from a
liquid abating agent in response to reduced pressure within the boiler.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Arno in view of
Hooshdaran, and further in view of Shinagawa. For the same reasons, we
sustain the rejection of claims 5, 7, and 24.
Ground 2: Rejection of claim 6 as obvious over Arno in view of
Hooshdaran, Shinagawa, and further in view of Dickinson
The Examiner rejects claim 6 as obvious over the combination of
Arno, Hooshdaran, Shinagawa, and Dickinson. See Final Act. 8–9;
Advisory Act. 2.
Appeal 2019-006210
Application 14/838,408

10
Appellant argues that “Dickinson fails to remedy the deficiencies” of
Arno and Hooshdaran. Appeal Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 6.
Having found no deficiencies in Arno and Hooshdaran for the reasons
set forth supra, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive.
As to Appellant’s argument that Dickinson’s disclosure of an
apparatus having “a plasma source coupled to a foreline” is a teaching away
from claim 1, we find that it is not. Appeal Br. 15; Reply Br. 6. Dickinson
merely states that “some embodiments” of an apparatus for exhaust gas
treatment include “a plasma source coupled to a foreline.” See Dickinson
Abstract. Teaching away requires that a reference “criticize, discredit, or
otherwise discourage the solution claimed” by Appellant. In re Fulton, 391
F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Dickinson’s stated “some embodiments”
falls far short of the requirements for teaching away. See Galderma Labs.,
L.P., v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“teaching away”
requires more than the mere expression of a general preference); cf. In re
Dunn, 349 F.2d 433, 438 (CCPA 1965) (teaching an alternative or
equivalent method, does not teach away from the use of a claimed method).
We sustain the rejection of claim 6 as obvious over Arno in view of
Hooshdaran, Shinagawa, and further in view of Dickinson.
Ground 3: Rejection of claims 1, 5–7, and 21–25 as obvious over
Hooshdaran in view of Arno, and further in view of Shinagawa
The Examiner determines that Hooshdaran in view of Arno, and
further in view of Shinagawa, would have rendered claims 1, 5–7, and 21–25
obvious. Final Act. 9–18; Advisory Act. 2. Appellant argues the claims
based on limitations recited in claims 1 and 21. Appeal Br. 16–31. We
select these claims as representative. Claims 5–7 and 22–25 stand or fall
Appeal 2019-006210
Application 14/838,408

11
with each of their respective independent claims. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Regarding claims 1 and 21, Appellant argues that Hooshdaran does
not teach or suggest when a thermal reactor is not needed for treating
effluent. Appeal Br. 18, 25–26. Appellant specifically argues that
Hooshdaran’s and Arno’s combined teachings fail to render obvious the
limitation “there is no effluent burner or plasma source interfaced with the
foreline.” Id. at 16, 23.
For the reasons set forth supra, Appellant’s arguments are not
persuasive. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
would have found it obvious to omit a thermal reactor if oxidizing
hydrocarbons is unnecessary. See Thompson, 545 F.2d at 1294.
Furthermore, Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner
reasoned conclusion that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art to replace Hooshdaran’s preferred plasma source with Arno’s
low pressure boiler. Final Act. 10–11; 15–16. As the Examiner finds, the
skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because
water vaporization provides a safer source of hydrogen gas for effluent
treatment. Id.
Appellant contends that Shinagawa cannot render claims 1 and 21
obvious because Shinagawa merely teaches an apparatus for controlling the
temperature of a system’s pipes surrounding a water tank’s exterior. Appeal
Br. 21, 22, 28–29. Appellant argues that Shinagawa thus fails to teach or
suggest a boiler that is operable to produce vapor from a liquid abating agent
in response to reduced pressure. Id.
Appeal 2019-006210
Application 14/838,408

12
For the reasons set forth supra, Appellant unpersuasively argues for
the bodily incorporation of Shinagawa’s temperature controlled pipes into
the primary reference. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. We agree with the
Examiner that Shinagawa’s fluid coupling of a water tank’s interior to a
vacuum chamber teaches or suggests the structural elements for performing
the claimed function. Final Act. 12–13; see Shinagawa Fig. 1. In other
words, Hooshdaran’s system, as modified by Arno’s and Shinagawa’s
teachings, would have been capable of producing vapor from a liquid
abating agent in response to reduced pressure within the boiler, as required
by claims 1 and 21. See Parker Vision, 903 F.3d at 1361.
Regarding claim 21, the Examiner finds that although Hooshdaran
does not disclose a valve disposed between the abating agent delivery
system and the injection port, Shinagawa teaches a vacuum chamber having
valves and a mass-flow controller. Final Act. 16–17 (citing Shinagawa
3:61–4:6; 5:32–45). The Examiner determines that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
modify Hooshdaran’s system with Shinagawa’s “valve disposed between the
abating agent delivery system and the injection port, wherein the valve is
operable to adiabatically vaporize a liquid abating agent disposed with the
abating delivery system and a controller to selectively operate the valve in
Hooshdaran’s system.” Final Act. 17.
According to the Examiner, “[t]he recitation ‘the low pressure boiler
is operable to produce steam in response to a reduction of pressure within
the low pressure boiler’ is the manner in which the system is operated and
does not impart any additional structural limitations to the system.” Id. at
13.
Appeal 2019-006210
Application 14/838,408

13
Appellant contends that the claimed vacuum pump and valve “impart
additional structural limitations to the system[,] which cause” the claimed
boiler function. Appeal Br. 30 (emphasis omitted). Appellant argues that
the combined prior art fails to teach the claimed vacuum pump and valve
because “Shin[a]gawa does not disclose a low pressure boiler that is
operable to produce vapor in response to a reduction of pressure within the
low pressure boiler.” Id.; see also Reply Br. 6.
In response, the Examiner does not dispute that the vacuum pump and
valve elements recited in claim 21 are structural limitations. Ans. 10.
Appellant does not show reversible error by the Examiner in rejecting
claim 21 as obvious over Hooshdaran in view of Arno, and further in view
of Shinagawa. For the reasons set forth supra, Hooshdaran’s system, as
modified by Arno’s and Shinagawa’s teachings, would have been capable of
producing vapor from a liquid abating agent in response to reduced pressure
within the boiler. See Parker Vision, 903 F.3d at 1361.
Furthermore, claim 21 recites “wherein the valve is operable to lower
a pressure within the boiler to vaporize the liquid abating agent disposed
within the abating agent delivery system.” Appeal Br. 33−34 (Claims App.)
(emphasis added). The Examiner persuasively reasons that the vacuum
pump in Hooshdaran’s modified system is capable of being “operated to
create low pressure in [the] boiler and/or open[] the one or more valves to
reduce the pressure inside the boiler” and produce steam. Ans. 10; see Final
Act. 13; see also Parker Vision, 903 F.3d at 1361.
We sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 21 as obvious over
Hooshdaran in view of Arno, and further in view of Shinagawa. For the
same reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 5–7 and 22–25.
Appeal 2019-006210
Application 14/838,408

14
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5, 7, 24 103 Arno, Hooshdaran, Shinagawa 1, 5, 7, 24
6 103
Arno, Hooshdaran,
Shinagawa,
Dickinson
6
1, 5–7, 21–25 103 Hooshdaran, Arno Shinagawa
1, 5–7, 21–
25
Overall
Outcome
1, 5–7, 21–
25
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