Ex Parte IWABUCHI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2018

14456323 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/456,323 08/11/2014
25944 7590 01/02/2019
OLIFF PLC
P.O. BOX 320850
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22320-4850
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Motoaki IWABUCHI
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.
162708 2972
EXAMINER
WALKE, AMANDA C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1722
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/02/2019 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):
OfficeAction25944@oliff.com
jarmstrong@oliff.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MOTOAKI IW ABUCHI, TSUTOMU OGIHARA,
YUKIO HOSHI, and YUSUKE BIY AJIMA
Appeal2017-010015
Application 14/456,323
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5, and 13. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appellants' invention is directed to a method of cleaning a
manufacturing apparatus for a silicon-containing resist. (Claim 1 ).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for cleaning a manufacturing apparatus for a silicon-
containing resist under layer film-forming composition, which is used
in a manufacturing process of a semiconductor apparatus, comprising
the steps of:
Appeal2017-010015
Application 14/456,323
cleaning the manufacturing apparatus, including a preparation
tank and a pipe, for the silicon-containing resist under layer film-
forming composition with a cleaning solution;
analyzing the cleaning solution taken out from the
manufacturing apparatus;
repeating the step of cleaning and the step of analyzing until a
concentration of a nonvolatile component(s) contained in the cleaning
solution becomes 10 ppm or less.
Appellants appeal the following rejection:
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Takei (US 8,048,615 B2; issued Nov. 1, 20111) in view of
Wu et al., Improving Advanced Lithography Process Defectivity with a
Highly Retentive 5nm Asymmetric UPE Filter, Entegris, Inc., p. 1-6 (2009).
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Takei discloses a silicon-containing resist
underlayer composition comprising a polymerizable silicon compound, a
solvent and an initiator, wherein the resist composition is prepared and
filtered prior to coating (Final Act. 5). The Examiner finds that Takei
teaches using a polyethylene microfilter (Final Act. 5). The Examiner finds
that Wu teaches a filter for resist filtering having very small pore sizes to
reduce defects as well as priming the filter with solvent to remove more
particles to improve filter performance, and ultimately reduce
composition/pattern defects (Final Act. 5). The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to prepare the material of Takei using Wu's
polyethylene microfilter that has been primed with solvent (Final Act. 5).
The Examiner finds that the solvent priming by Wu constitutes cleaning
before use to remove any contaminants (Ans. 7). The Examiner finds that
2
Appeal2017-010015
Application 14/456,323
although Takei and Wu do not explicitly recite a cleaning process used in a
variety of applications every day, the process is not novel and would have
been immediately envisaged by one of ordinary skill in the art when using
and cleaning lab equipment prior to the effective filing date of the instant
invention (Ans. 10). The Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have immediately envisaged repeating the cleaning should
impurities remain in the cleaning solvent until it ran clear (Ans. 9).
Appellants argue that the Examiner has not dispensed with the initial
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness (App. Br. 5).
Appellants contend that the combined teachings of Takei and Wu fail to
teach filtering a cleaning composition (App. Br. 6). Rather, Appellants
contend that Takei and Wu teach the conventional method of filtering a
coating composition to remove impurities prior to depositing the coating
(App. Br. 6). Appellants argue that none of the prior art teaches cleaning a
manufacturing apparatus including a preparation tank and a pipe and
repeating the cleaning and analyzing steps until the impurity level is 10 ppm
or less as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 7).
The preponderance of the evidence favors Appellants' arguments of
non-obviousness. The prior art cited by the Examiner does not teach
filtering and analyzing a cleaning solution as recited in claim 1. Rather, the
prior art teaches the conventional method of filtering a resist material before
use. Although the Examiner finds that the cleaning method would have been
immediately envisaged by a person of ordinary skill in the art, no evidence
was timely provided by the Examiner to support that finding. 1 The
1 The Examiner cites to several patents in the Answer as showing that
filtering and analyzing a cleaning solution was known in the art (Ans. 8).
3
Appeal2017-010015
Application 14/456,323
Examiner finds that the manufacturing apparatus in the claim is broad
enough to include any apparatus (Ans. 4). Claim 1, however, recites that the
manufacturing apparatus is for a silicon-containing resist and it includes a
preparation tank and a pipe. Though the Examiner finds that an apparatus
having storage tanks and pipes for feed materials are known, there is no
evidence to support the Examiner's conclusion that the claimed cleaning
method for a manufacturing apparatus would have been obvious.
On this record, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner's§ 103
rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
ORDER
REVERSED
These references were not used in the rejection and we will not consider
these references. In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3 (CCPA 1970).
4