Ex Parte Brcka

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 7, 2012

11694354 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 7, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte JOZEF BRCKA
________________

Appeal 2011-002234
Application 11/694,354
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, TERRY J. OWENS, and
PETER F. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 4, 6-9 and 13. Claims 2, 5, 10, 12 and 14, which are
all of the other pending claims, stand withdrawn from consideration by the
Examiner. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellant claims a plasma processing apparatus. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
Appeal 2011-002234
Application 11/694,354

2
1. A plasma processing apparatus comprising:

a processing chamber;

a plurality of gas supplies each containing a different one of a
plurality of different gases;

a plurality of inlet zones, each enclosed by a dielectric material and
each communicating a different one of the plurality of gases from one or
more of the gas supplies to the processing chamber, each of the inlet zones
being sufficiently large to allow a plasma to be maintained in a gas therein;
and

an RF energy source including an RF generator and at least one
antenna connected to the generator and inductively coupled through the
dielectric material to each of the inlet zones of the plurality of inlet zones to
thereby energize plasma in different gases in each of a plurality of the inlet
zones before the different gases combine in the processing chamber.

The References
Campbell US 5,122,251 Jun. 16, 1992
Suzuki US 5,522,934 Jun. 4, 1996
Hartig US 5,683,548 Nov. 4, 1997
Sakamoto US 6,578,515 B2 Jun. 17, 2003
Otsuki US 2003/0200929 A1 Oct. 30, 2003
Li US 6,908,862 B2 Jun. 21, 2005
The Rejections
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1,
4, 6, 7 and 13 over Hartig in view of Li, claims 7-9 over Hartig in view of Li
and Suzuki, claims 1, 4, 6, 7 and 13 over Sakamoto in view of Li, claims 7-9
over Sakamoto in view of Li and Suzuki, claims 1, 6, 7 and 13 over Otsuki
in view of Li, claim 4 over Otsuki in view of Li and Sakamoto, claims 7-9
Appeal 2011-002234
Application 11/694,354

3
over Otsuki in view of Li and Suzuki, claims 1, 4, 6, 7 and 13 over Campbell
in view of Li, and claims 7-9 over Campbell in view of Li and Suzuki.
OPINION
We affirm the rejections involving Hartig and reverse the other
rejections.
Rejections involving Hartig
The Appellant argues claims 1, 6, 7 and 13 as a group (Br. 10-12).
We therefore limit our discussion to one claim in that group, i.e., claim 1,
which is the sole independent claim on appeal. Claims 6, 7 and 13 stand or
fall with claim 1. The Appellant separately addresses claims 4, 8 and 9, but
does not provide a substantive argument as to the separate patentability of
those claims (Br. 14-16). Claims 4, 8 and 9, therefore, also stand or fall with
claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).
The Appellant argues that Hartig uses the same process gas and
plasma formation in each channel to achieve a spatial plasma distribution
(Br. 12; Reply Br. 7-8).
Hartig’s plasma reactor comprises a gas supply system (20) which is
capable of supplying an individual gas flow rate and composition through
each of a plurality of gas feed lines (35, 36) to a respective one of a plurality
of channels (38, 44), each of which is surrounded by an independently
powered RF coil (54, 56) such that plasma density can be varied within each
channel (abstract; col. 3, ll. 10 and 15-17; col. 4, ll. 48-62; Figs. 1-3). Thus,
we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejections involving Hartig.
Other rejections
The Examiner argues that Li discloses a plasma apparatus comprising
a plurality of gas supplies (134A-E) and gas inlets (139, 140, 145) to a
Appeal 2011-002234
Application 11/694,354

4
chamber (113), and that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to use Li’s gas supply configuration in Sakamoto’s, Otsuki’s and
Campbell’s apparatus to increase the versatility and controllability of the
process within the apparatus (Ans. 5, 7-8 and 13-14).
The Examiner has not established that Li, Sakamoto, Otsuki or
Campbell discloses, or would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill
in the art, an apparatus comprising a plurality of inlet zones, each of which is
capable of communicating a different gas to a processing chamber and being
sufficiently large to allow a plasma to be maintained in a gas therein. Li’s
plasma is formed in the chamber (113), not in a plurality of inlet zones
(col. 10, ll. 5-8). Sakamoto’s apparatus includes a plurality of plasma
generators (100), but they each form a plasma from the same gas to obtain a
uniform plasma distribution in a reaction zone (250) into which film
formation gas is jetted (col. 3, ll. 39-47; col. 5, ll. 20-26; col. 6, ll. 23-28).
Otsuki forms in an upper chamber (11c) a plasma which excites film
formation gas in a lower chamber (11a) (¶¶ 0075-76; Fig. 10). Campbell’s
apparatus includes multiple plasma generators (49-51), but they form from
the same gas a uniform plasma which excites film formation or etching gas
in a chamber (61) (col. 10, ll. 7-44; Fig. 4).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections involving Sakamoto,
Otsuki or Campbell.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1, 4, 6, 7 and 13 over
Hartig in view of Li and claims 7-9 over Hartig in view of Li and Suzuki are
affirmed. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1, 4, 6, 7 and 13
over Sakamoto in view of Li, claims 7-9 over Sakamoto in view of Li and
Appeal 2011-002234
Application 11/694,354

5
Suzuki, claims 1, 6, 7 and 13 over Otsuki in view of Li, claim 4 over Otsuki
in view of Li and Sakamoto, claims 7-9 over Otsuki in view of Li and
Suzuki, claims 1, 4, 6, 7 and 13 over Campbell in view of Li, and claims 7-9
over Campbell in view of Li and Suzuki are reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision 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

ssl