Ex Parte Babic et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 21, 2010

10955325 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 21, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte DARKO BABIC
and GENTARO GOSHI
__________

Appeal 2009-007338
Application 10/955,325
Technology Center 1700
___________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and
MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges.

HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-007338
Application 10/955,325

2
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from an Examiner’s decision
finally rejecting claims 3-12, 16, and 18-21, all of the pending claims.2 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The subject matter on appeal is directed to a high pressure processing
system for treating a substrate comprising, inter alia, a fluid flow system
coupled to a processing chamber. The fluid flow system is a recirculation
system configured to recirculate, to one or more inlets of the processing
chamber, fluid that is removed from one or more outlets of the processing
chamber. A pre-mixing system is coupled to the fluid flow system (i.e.,
recirculation system) and to high pressure fluid supply and process
chemistry supply systems. The pre-mixing system is configured to mix the
high pressure fluid and process chemistry prior to introduction to the fluid
flow system (i.e., recirculation system). The pre-mixing system includes a
bypass line and one or more valves operable to direct the flow of fluid from
the recirculation system through either the processing chamber or the bypass
line.
Claim 16, reproduced below, is illustrative.
16. A high pressure processing system for treating a substrate
comprising:

a processing chamber having one or more inlets, one or
more outlets, and a substrate support therein, and configured to
contain at high pressure a fluid having substantially

2 In the Examiner’s Answer dated May 15, 2008 (“Ans.”), at 2, the Examiner
indicated that “[t]he amendment to add ‘for’ before ‘recirculating’ in claim
21 may be entered.”
Appeal 2009-007338
Application 10/955,325

3
supercritical fluid properties for treatment of a substrate on the
substrate support;

a fluid flow system coupled to said processing chamber
and configured to circulate high pressure fluid through said
processing chamber and over said substrate, said fluid flow
system being a recirculation system configured to recirculate to
one or more inlets of said processing chamber fluid removed
from one or more outlets of said processing chamber;

a high pressure fluid supply system coupled to said fluid
flow system and configured to introduce a high pressure fluid
thereto;

a process chemistry supply system coupled to said fluid
flow system and configured to introduce a process chemistry
thereto;

a pre-mixing system coupled to fluid flow system and to
said high pressure fluid and process chemistry supply systems
and configured to receive said high pressure fluid from said
high pressure fluid supply system and said process chemistry
from said process chemistry supply system and to mix said high
pressure fluid and said process chemistry prior to introducing
said high pressure fluid and said process chemistry to said fluid
flow system, said pre-mixing system including a bypass line
and one or more valves operable to direct the flow of fluid from
said recirculation system alternatively through either said
chamber or said bypass line; and

a controller connected to said valves and said fluid flow
system and operable to control said valves and said fluid flow
control system to cause high pressure fluid and process
chemistry to recirculate through said bypass line of said pre-
mixing system unless and until said process chemistry and said
high pressure fluid are mixed and then to recirculate through
said processing chamber when said process chemistry and said
high pressure fluid are mixed.

Appeal 2009-007338
Application 10/955,325

4
Appeal Brief dated March 28, 2008 (“App. Br.”), Claims Appendix
(emphasis added).
The following Examiner’s rejections are before us on appeal:
(1) Claims 3-5, 11, 12, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Douglas (US 2004/0025908 A1, published
February 12, 2004).3
(2) Claims 3-5, 11, 12, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Douglas and Worm (US
2003/0047199 A1, published March 13, 2003).
(3) Claims 6-10, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combination of Douglas, Worm, and Phallen (US
6,186,193 B1, issued February 13, 2001).
B. DISCUSSION
1. Rejection (1)
The Examiner found that Douglas discloses a supercritical fluid
delivery system comprising a processing chamber 52, a high pressure fluid
supply system 26, and a process chemistry supply system 42. The Examiner
found that the delivery system also comprises a fluid flow system having
two recirculation loops 22 and 40 and a premixing system having a mixer
48, a chamber bypass valve 54, and a bypass line 56. Ans. 3.
The Appellants argue that neither recirculation lines 22 and 40 nor the
bypass line 56 render obvious one or more valves operable to direct the flow
of fluid from a recirculation system, as recited in claim 16, through either the
processing chamber 52 or the bypass line 56. App. Br. 17.

3 In the Examiner’s Answer dated May 15, 2008, at 2, the Examiner
withdrew the rejection of claims 3-5, 11, 12, 16, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Douglas.
Appeal 2009-007338
Application 10/955,325

5
The Appellants’ argument is supported by the record. The
recirculation loops 22 and 40 disclosed in Douglas are not configured to
recirculate, to one or more inlets of the processing chamber, fluid that is
removed from one or more outlets of the processing chamber. Moreover,
the pre-mixing system of Douglas does not include one or more valves
operable to direct the flow of fluid from a recirculation system, as recited in
claim 16, through either the processing chamber 52 or the bypass line 56.
The Examiner has failed to explain why the recirculation system
recited in claim 16 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art in view of the teachings of Douglas. Therefore, the § 103(a) rejection of
claims 3-5, 11, 12, 16, 19, and 20 based on Douglas will be reversed.
2. Rejection (2)
a. Claim 16
The Examiner finds that Worm discloses a supercritical fluid delivery
system comprising a recirculation system 200 that is coupled to a processing
chamber 410. The Examiner finds that the recirculation system 200
recirculates, to one or more inlets of the processing chamber, fluid that is
removed from one or more outlets of the processing chamber. Ans. 5. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to couple this recirculation system to the processing chamber of
Douglas “to expose the substrate repeatedly to cleaning fluid for complete
cleaning and to keep supercritical CO2 in fluid condition.” Ans. 6.
The Appellants do not dispute that Worm discloses a recirculation
system as claimed. Instead, the Appellants argue that Worm does not
disclose a pre-mixing system including one or more valves operable to direct
Appeal 2009-007338
Application 10/955,325

6
the flow of fluid form the recirculation system through either the processing
chamber or the bypass line.
The Appellants’ argument fails to consider the prior art as a whole.
See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (the test for obviousness is
what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art). The Examiner found that Douglas
discloses a pre-mixing system comprising a mixer 48, a chamber bypass
valve 54, and a bypass line 56. Ans. 3; Douglas, para. [0029]. Douglas
discloses that the bypass valve 54 switches flow alternatively through either
the bypass line 56 or the processing chamber 52. The bypass line 56 is said
to permit “the flow, temperature, phase and mixing of process fluid or fluid
mixture to be adjusted and regulated without introducing the mixture into the
process chamber until the mixture is stabilized to the extent required.”
Douglas, para. [0029].
The Examiner merely relies on Worm to establish that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art couple a recirculation system
to the processing chamber and pre-mixing system of Douglas.
The Appellants do not direct us to any evidence to the contrary.
Therefore, the § 103(a) rejection of claims 3-5, 11, and 16 based on the
combination of Douglas and Worm will be affirmed.
b. Claims 12, 19, and 20
The Appellants group claims 12, 19, and 20 separately. However, the
Appellants do not explain why claims 12, 19, and 20 are separately
patentable from claim 16. The Appellants merely argue that claims 12, 19,
and 20 are patentable over the prior art of record for the same reasons
presented in support of the patentability of claim 16. See App. Br. 20-21.
Appeal 2009-007338
Application 10/955,325

7
For the reasons discussed above, the Appellants’ arguments are not
persuasive of reversible error. Therefore, the § 103(a) rejection of claims
12, 19, and 20 based on the combination of Douglas and Worm will be
affirmed.
3. Rejection (3)
a. Claim 21
The Examiner found that the combined teachings of Douglas and
Worm do not disclose a “means for determining when said high pressure
fluid and said process chemistry are mixed” as recited in claim 21.
However, the Examiner found, and the Appellants do not dispute, that
Phallen discloses a “means for determining when said high pressure fluid
and said process chemistry are mixed” (i.e., a Coriolis mass meter). Ans. 6;
App. Br. 24.
The Examiner concluded, and the Appellants do not dispute, that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a meter
as disclosed in Phallen in the delivery system of Douglas to detect complete
mixing of the processing fluid before permitting the fluid to flow through the
processing chamber. Ans. 6.
As for the remaining limitations recited in claim 21, the Appellants
contend that “[c]laim 21 differs from claim 16 only in that claim 21 utilizes
mean[s]-plus-function language.”4 App. Br. 24. Thus, the Appellants

4 Regarding claim 21, the Examiner argues that the limitation “means for
mixing said high pressure fluid and said process chemistry by recirculating
said high pressure fluid and said process chemistry and bypassing said high
pressure chamber prior to introducing said high pressure fluid and said
process chemistry to said high pressure processing system” is not in proper
means-plus-function format. Ans. 6-7. It is not necessary to reach this issue
Appeal 2009-007338
Application 10/955,325

8
contend that claim 21 is patentable for the same reasons presented in support
of the patentability of claim 16.
For the reasons discussed above, those arguments are not persuasive
of reversible error. Therefore, the § 103(a) rejection of claim 21 based on
the combination of Douglas, Worm, and Phallen will be affirmed.
The Appellants do not separately address the patentability of claim 18.
Therefore, the § 103(a) rejection of claim 18 based on the combination of
Douglas, Worm, and Phallen will also be affirmed.
b. Claims 6-10
The Appellants group claims 6-10 separately. However, the
Appellants do not explain why claims 6-9 are separately patentable from
claims 16 and 21. Instead, the Appellants argue that claims 6-9 are
patentable over the prior art of record for the same reasons presented in
support of the patentability of claims 16 and 21. See App. Br. 24-25. For
the reasons discussed above, the Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of
reversible error.
As to claim 10, the Appellants argue that “[n]one of the art cited
against claim 10 provides a bypass line having one end coupled to the outlet
of a pump and the other end coupled to the inlet of the same pump.” App.
Br. 26.
The Appellants’ argument is not persuasive of reversible error. The
Appellants indicate that the subject matter on appeal is “best illustrated as
system 300 of FIG. 3.” App. Br. 2. Figure 3 shows bypass line 362 directly
coupled to first and second valves 364 and 366 which are, in turn, coupled to

in view of the Appellants’ contention that claim 21 only differs from claim
16 in the use of means-plus-function language.
Appeal 2009-007338
Application 10/955,325

9
filter 326 and heater 322, respectively, which are, in turn, coupled to each
side of pump 324. Thus, we interpret the term “coupled” as used in claim 10
to include “indirect coupling.” See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05
(CCPA 1969) (during prosecution, claims are to be given the broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification).
There appears to be no dispute that the recirculation system of Worm
includes a pump. See App. Br. 25 (“several of the cases of cited art teach a
pump within a recirculation line”); see also Worm, para. [0105] (fluid
transfer device P2 is operable to draw fluid from the pressure chamber and
force the fluid through the lines L8 and L9). Thus, we find that each end of
the bypass line 56 of Douglas would be “coupled,” albeit indirectly, to a
pump as recited in claim 10 when the recirculation system of Worm is
coupled to the processing chamber and the pre-mixing system of Douglas as
proposed by the Examiner. The Appellants have failed to direct us to any
evidence to the contrary.
For the reasons set forth above, the § 103(a) rejection of claims 6-10
based on the combination of Douglas, Worm, and Phallen will be affirmed.
C. DECISION
The rejection of claims 3-5, 11, 12, 16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Douglas is reversed.
The rejection of claims 3-5, 11, 12, 16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Douglas and Worm is
affirmed.
The rejection of claims 6-10, 18, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Douglas, Worm, and Phallen is
affirmed.
Appeal 2009-007338
Application 10/955,325

10
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

kmm

WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP (TOKYO ELECTRON)
2700 CAREW TOWER
441 VINE STREET
CINCINNATI, OH 45202