Ex Parte Korolik et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2014

12555217 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2014)

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.
12/555,217 09/08/2009 Mikhail Korolik LAM2P467.D 1173
119049 7590 03/28/2014
MPG, LLP and Lam Research Corp.
Albert Penilla
710 Lakeway Drive
Suite 200
Sunnyvale, CA 94085
EXAMINER
MARKOFF, ALEXANDER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1711
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MIKHAIL KOROLIK, JOHN M. DE LARIOS,
MIKE RAVKIN and JEFFREY FARBER
____________

Appeal 2012-011159
Application 12/555,217
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-011159
Application 12/555,217

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1 through 5 and 8 through 12 and 19 through 28. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants’ invention is directed to fluid processing of substrate
surfaces with a fluid meniscus. App. Br. 4. Claims 1 and 19 are illustrative
of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below:
1. A method for processing a substrate, comprising:

generating a fluid meniscus to process the substrate, the fluid
meniscus being defined between a surface of a proximity head and a surface
of the substrate, and the proximity head is configured to deliver and remove
fluid to and from a surface of the substrate at substantially a same time to
maintain the fluid meniscus between the surface of the proximity head and
the surface of the substrate;

applying the fluid meniscus to a surface of the substrate, the applying
being performed by moving the fluid meniscus across the surface of the
substrate, which enables progressive processing of unprocessed regions of
the substrate as the fluid meniscus moves across the surface of the substrate;
and

while the fluid meniscus moves across the surface of the substrate,
managing a substrate processing environment so evaporation of fluids in
unprocessed regions of the substrate is reduced.

19. A method for processing a substrate, comprising:

generating a fluid meniscus to process the substrate, the fluid
meniscus being defined between a surface of a proximity head and a surface
of the substrate, and the proximity head is configured to deliver and remove
fluid to and from a surface of the substrate at substantially a same time to
maintain the fluid meniscus between the surface of the proximity head and
the surface of the substrate;
Appeal 2012-011159
Application 12/555,217

3

applying the fluid meniscus to a surface of the substrate, the applying
being performed by moving the fluid meniscus across the surface of the
substrate, which enables progressive processing of unprocessed regions of
the substrate as the fluid meniscus moves across the surface of the substrate;
and

while the fluid meniscus moves across the surface of the substrate,
applying a humidifying gas at a leading edge of the proximity head, so that
evaporation in the unprocessed regions is reduced before the fluid meniscus
encounters the unprocessed regions of the substrate.

The Examiner relied on the following references in rejecting the
appealed subject matter:
Batchelder US 5,472,502 Dec. 5, 1995
Bok et al. US 5,601,655 Feb. 11, 1997

Appellants, App. Br. 5-6, request review of the following rejections
from the Examiner’s final office action:
I. Claims 19-24, 27 and 28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
II. Claims 25 and 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
III. Claims 1-4, 9-11, 13-15, 19-21, 23, 25 and 26 rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Bok.
IV. Claims 5-7, 16-18 and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bok.
V. Claims 1-4, 13-15, 19-21 and 23-26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Batchelder.
VI. Claims 5-7 and 16-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Batchelder.

Appeal 2012-011159
Application 12/555,217

4
In addition, the Examiner (Ans. 7-8) maintained the following
rejections:
VII. Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bok
in view of Maekawa OR DeSimone or Ban et al.
VIII. Claims 12 and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bok in view of Kamikawa or Frey.
IX. Claims 1-5, 8-12 and 19-28 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of
U.S. Patent No. 6954993.
X. Claims 1-5, 8-12 and 19-28 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of
U.S. Patent No. 7722724.
XI. Claims 1-5, 8-12 and 19-28 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 7 of
U.S. Patent No. 7749689.
The Examiner notes that Appellants did not request review of the
above noted rejections. Ans. 7; App. Br. 5-6. We construe that Appellants
intended to present these rejections for review on appeal in view of their
general statement that 1-5, 8-12 and 19-28 are on appeal. App. Br. 4.

OPINION
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
(Written Description)

With respect to claims 19-24, the Examiner found that the original
disclosure fails to provide descriptive support for the limitation requiring
application of a humidifying gas. Ans. 4. The Examiner further found that
the original disclosure fails to support the limitation of claims 27 and 28
Appeal 2012-011159
Application 12/555,217

5
requiring reduced evaporation reducing reassimilation water molecules to
and from the surface of the substrate. Id. at 5.
Appellants argue that application of a gas for humidifying is clearly
supported by paragraphs [0016, 0028, 0041, 0043, 0045, 0050, etc.], all of
which discuss the humidity of the gas, and many associated examples. App.
Br. 6. Appellants also argue that Figure 5, item 402, and related text in
paragraph [0047] teach the application of a humidifying gas at the leading
edge of the proximity head. Id. at 8.
Regarding the disputed limitation of claims 27 and 28, Appellants
argue that paragraph [0042] discusses the reduction of reassimilation of
water molecules and supports the disputed language of claims 27 and 28. Id.
at 6.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not adequately
explained why the Specification does not provide written descriptive support
for the contested language. The Examiner has not explained why one skilled
in the art, upon reading the cited paragraphs of the Specification, would not
have concluded that the disclosure reasonably describes the application of a
humidifying gas. The Examiner has also not adequately explained why one
skilled in the art would not have concluded that the disclosure reasonably
describes the reduction of reassimilation of water molecules.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph for the reasons presented by Appellants and given above.

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph

The Examiner found that claims 25 and 26 are indefinite because it is
not clear how a meniscus can be a chemical. Ans. 5. The Examiner also
Appeal 2012-011159
Application 12/555,217

6
found the claims are indefinite because of the failure to use proper Markush
language. Id.
We do not find the Examiner’s reasons persuasive for the reasons
provided by Appellants. App. Br. 8-9. As argued by Appellants, the
Specification recites example chemicals for the fluid meniscus. Id. The
Examiner has not adequately explained why one skilled in the art would not
understand how a meniscus can be a chemical. Consequently, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would understand the claimed invention when
viewed in the context of the Specification. The Examiner has also not
adequately explained why the language of the claims is indefinite.
Alternative expressions are permitted if they present no uncertainty or
ambiguity with respect to the question of scope or clarity of the claims.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
The dispositive issue on appeal is: Did the Examiner err in
determining that Bok and Batchelder each describe a method of processing a
substrate by generating a meniscus between an applicator and the substrate
and managing the substrate processing environment to reduce evaporation of
the fluids in unprocessed regions of the substrates as required by the subject
matter of independent claims 1 and 19? 1, 2

1 We limit our discussion to claim 1.
2 A discussion of Maekawa (U.S. Patent No. US6221171 B1 issues April 4,
2001), DeSimone (U.S. Patent No. 6500273 B2 issued December 31, 2002),
Ban (U.S. Patent No. 5,336,356 issued August 9, 1994), Kamikawa (U.S.
Patent No. 6,158,449 issued December 12, 2000) and Frey (U.S. Patent No.
6,082,377 issued July 4, 2000), relied upon by the Examiner in the separate
Appeal 2012-011159
Application 12/555,217

7
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and
the Examiner, we REVERSE for the reasons presented by Appellants and
add the following.
We refer to the Examiner’s Answer for a statement of the prior art
rejections (Ans. 5-6).
Appellants argue that Bok does not teach any method that defines the
fluid meniscus between the applicator and the surface of the substrate so as
to manage the substrate environment to reduce evaporation of the fluids in
unprocessed regions of the substrates as claimed. App. Br. 9-10. Instead,
Appellants contend that Bok discloses that the flow of fluid 16 leaves a film
at its trailing edge that remains on the surface of the substrate, even after the
head passes the treatment region. Id.
With respect to Batchelder, Appellants argue that Batchelder is
directed to the application of fluids are that are applied to the surface of a
spinning wafer and, thus, does not teach a meniscus that is defined between
the head surface and the surface of the substrate, based on the delivery and
removal through the head. Id. at 10-11.
Appellants’ position is supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
While the Examiner reasons that Bok discloses managing the substrate
environment so evaporation of fluids from the surface of the substrate is
reduced in the vicinity of the meniscus (Ans. 5), the Examiner does not
adequately explain how Bok manages the substrate processing environment

rejections of claims 8, 12 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Ans. 7-8), is
unnecessary for disposition of the present appeal. The Examiner relied upon
these references for features not related to the dispositive issue.
Appeal 2012-011159
Application 12/555,217

8
so evaporation of fluids in unprocessed regions of the substrate is reduced as
required by the subject matter of independent claim 1.
With respect to Batchelder, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner has not adequately explained how Batchelder forms a meniscus as
required by the subject matter of independent claim 1. App. Br. 11.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims
1-5 and 8-12 and 19-28 for the reasons presented by the Appellants and
given above.
Nonstatutory Obviousness Type Double Patenting Rejections
With respect to the rejections of claims 1-5, 8-12, 19-23-28 on the
ground of nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting (Rejections IX-
XI), we note that Appellants have not challenged these rejections. See
Appeal Brief, generally. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the rejections of claims
1-5, 8-12, 19-23-28 on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness type double
patenting (Rejections IX-XI). Further, we note that Appellants have
acquiesced to these rejections by offering to file a terminal disclaimer to
overcome them. Response After Final Action of August 26, 2011 page 6.
ORDER
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-5 and 8-12 and 19-28 on the
ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting are affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 19-23, 27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph is reversed.
The Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1-5 and 8-12 and 19-28
are reversed.
Appeal 2012-011159
Application 12/555,217

9
TIME PERIOD
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).

AFFIRMED

lp