Ex parte FU

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 28, 1998

08097588 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 28, 1998)

Application for patent filed July 26, 1993. According1
to appellant, this application is a continuation of
Application 07/874,668, filed April 27, 1992, now abandoned.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is
not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte THOMAS T. FU
__________
Appeal No. 95-3451
Application No. 08/097,5881
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before GARRIS, WARREN and ELLIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the final rejection
of claims 9 through 11, 13 through 15, 18 through 24 and 30
through 33. The only other claims remaining in the
application have been allowed by the examiner.
Appeal No. 95-3451
Application No. 08/097,588
2
The subject matter on appeal relates to a method of
introducing a gas to a chamber, to a method of changing the
gas pressure within a chamber and to a processing system
having a chamber which gas enters or leaves. The
aforementioned methods and system involve a tube disposed
through a wall of the chamber wherein the tube includes a gas
diffuser through which gas flows. Further details of this
appealed subject matter are set forth in illustrative claims
9, 11 and 13 which read as follows:
9. A method of introducing a gas to a chamber,
comprising the steps of:
providing at least one tube disposed through a wall of
said chamber, said tube including a gas diffuser formed from a
porous material disposed thereon, said gas diffuser having a
circumferential radius less than or equal to the radius of
said tube;
introducing a gas at a selected velocity to said chamber
through said tube; and
slowing the velocity of said gas by flowing said gas
through said gas diffuser such that gas flow is redistributed
through a plurality of microscopic holes in said gas diffuser.
11. The method of claim 9 wherein said gas diffuser is
disposed within said tube outside said chamber.
Appeal No. 95-3451
Application No. 08/097,588
The appealed claims have been grouped and argued2
separately as indicated on page 5 of the Brief.
3
13. The method of claim 9 wherein the introduction of
said gas substantially changes the pressure within said
chamber.
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Arai 5,002,793 Mar.
26, 1991
Hansen 5,123,375 Jun. 23,
1992
(filed Oct. 20, 1990)
Claims 9 through 11, 13 through 15, 19 through 24 and 30
through 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hansen, and claims 18 and 33 are similarly
rejected as being unpatentable over Hansen in view of Arai .2
We refer to the Brief and to the Answer for a complete
exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
appellant and the examiner concerning the above noted
rejections.
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain the
rejection of claims 9, 10, 13 through 15, 19 through 23, 30
and 31 but not the rejection of claims 11, 18, 24, 32 and 33.
Appeal No. 95-3451
Application No. 08/097,588
4
The appellant “acknowledges that the gas ejector ring 260
disclosed in Figures 12 and 13 [of Hansen] is within the broad
description of Appellant’s gas diffuser 10” but argues that
“[e]ach of the claims on appeal, however, includes limitations
which are not disclosed by Hansen” (Brief, page 6).
Specifically, the appellant argues that Hansen contains
no teaching or suggestion of the independent claim 9
limitation of “said gas diffuser having a circumferential
radius less than or equal to the radius of said tube.” We
cannot agree. Patentee discloses a processing chamber (e.g.,
see 104 of Figure 3) having gas injector rings (see 108 and
110 of Figure 3) which are shown more specifically in Figures
12 and 13 as comprising an inlet port 266 leading to ring 264
which supports diffusing means 262 (see columns 22 and 23).
Particularly in light of the appellant’s previously mentioned
acknowledgment, we consider it reasonable and consistent with
the subject specification to interpret the appealed claim 9
tube as reading on Hansen’s inlet port 266/support ring 264.
In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1983) (application claims are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification).
Appeal No. 95-3451
Application No. 08/097,588
5
When this claim is so interpreted, the above noted limitation
is satisfied by virtue of the fact that patentee’s diffusing
means 262 has a smaller circumferential radius than does the
outer wall of support ring or “tube” 264.
In light of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s
§ 103 rejection of independent claim 9 and of nonargued
dependent claims 10, 15, 30 and 31 as being unpatentable over
Hansen.
We will also sustain the § 103 rejection based on Hansen
of claims 13, 14 and 19 through 23. This is because we are
unpersuaded by the appellant’s argument that Hansen contains
no teaching or suggestion of the features in claims 13, 14 and
19 which involve changing (e.g., by raising) the pressure
within the chamber. Although the chamber pressure is
maintained at a constant level during portions of patentee’s
method, this pressure is unquestionably decreased and
increased at other portions (e.g., during the anneal step) of
the method; see Table I at columns 9 and 10 as well as lines
37 through 67 in column 13 and lines 16 through 21 in column
14.
Appeal No. 95-3451
Application No. 08/097,588
6
However, we cannot sustain the examiner’s § 103 rejection
of claims 11, 18, 24, 32 and 33 as being unpatentable over
Hansen alone or further in view of Arai. As correctly
indicated by the appellant, the applied references contain no
teaching, suggestion or incentive concerning the here claimed
feature of a gas diffuser disposed outside the chamber. More
specifically, the examiner’s references do not support a
conclusion that such a disposition was even known in the prior
art much less that it would have been desirable to so dispose
the gas diffuser of Hansen.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
BRADLEY R. GARRIS )
Appeal No. 95-3451
Application No. 08/097,588
7
Administrative Patent Judge)
)
)
)
CHARLES F. WARREN ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JOAN ELLIS )
Administrative Patent Judge)
Appeal No. 95-3451
Application No. 08/097,588
8
Ira S. Matsil
Texas Instruments Incorporated
Patent Department, M/S 219
P.O. Box 655474
Dallas, TX 75265