Ex Parte McIntyre et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 10, 2018

13729524 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/729,524 12/28/2012
29393 7590 09/12/2018
Eschweiler & Potashnik, LLC
Rosetta Center
629 Euclid Ave., Suite 1000
Cleveland, OH 44114
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Edward K. McIntyre
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.
EATNP322US 3604
EXAMINER
CROHN, MARK I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2857
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/12/2018 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):
docketing@eschweilerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EDWARD K. McINTYRE,
EDWARD J. LADNY, NATHANIEL ROBINSON,
and WILLIAM DA VIS LEE
Appeal2018-001004
Application 13/729,524 1
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner's
decision finally rejecting claims 2-9, 12, 13, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 The real party in interest, and the Applicant, is said to be Axcelis Technologies,
Inc. Appeal Brief dated June 19, 2017 ("App. Br."), at 1.
2 The obviousness rejections of claims 2-9, 12, 13, and 15-17 were withdrawn in
the Examiner's Answer. Examiner's Answer dated September 8, 2017 ("Ans."), at
2.
Appeal2018-001004
Application 13/729,524
The claims on appeal are directed to an electrostatic clamp monitoring
system and a method for monitoring a clamping capability of an electrostatic
clamp.
The Appellants disclose that in semiconductor manufacturing, electrostatic
clamps are often used to hold a workpiece, such as a semiconductor wafer, in
position while the workpiece undergoes various semiconductor processing, such as
ion implantation. Spec. 1, 11. 10-13. The Appellants disclose that during such
semiconductor processing, it is desirable to accurately maintain the position of the
workpiece with respect to the electrostatic clamp and/or maintain a temperature of
the workpiece, which often requires the workpiece to maintain a predetermined
contact pressure with a surface of the electrostatic clamp. Spec. 1, 11. 13-19.
In order to maintain the position and/ or predetermined contact pressure of
the workpiece with respect to the electrostatic clamp, the Appellants disclose that
tests are often performed to ensure proper clamping forces are maintained
throughout clamping and processing of the workpiece. Spec. 1, 11. 20-23. The
Appellants disclose that the present invention provides a system and method for
assessing a clamping capability associated with an electrostatic clamp independent
of conventional mechanical testing. Spec. 2, 11. 17-19.
Independent claims 4 and 15 are reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix to the Appeal Brief.
4. An electrostatic clamp monitoring system, comprising:
an electrostatic clamp configured to selectively electrostatically
clamp a workpiece to a clamping surface associated therewith via one
or more electrodes;
a power supply electrically coupled to the electrostatic clamp,
wherein the power supply is configured to selectively supply a
clamping voltage to the one or more electrodes of the electrostatic
clamp;
2
Appeal2018-001004
Application 13/729,524
a data acquisition system operably coupled to the power supply
and configured to measure a current supplied to the one or more
electrodes, therein defining a measured current;
a controller configured to integrate the measured current over
time, therein determining a charge value associated with a clamping
force between the workpiece and electrostatic clamp; and
a memory configured to store the charge value associated with
the clamping force between the workpiece and electrostatic clamp
over a plurality of clamping cycles, therein defining a plurality of
charge values, wherein the controller is further configured to
determine a clamping capability of the electrostatic clamp based on a
comparison of a currently determined charge value to the plurality of
charge values, and wherein the controller is configured to predict a
future status of the clamping capability of the electrostatic clamp
based on the currently determined charge value and the plurality of
charge values.
App. Br. 13-14.
15. A method for monitoring a clamping capability of an
electrostatic clamp, the method comprising:
applying a clamping voltage to one or more electrodes of an
electrostatic clamp, therein electrostatically attracting a workpiece to a
clamping surface of the electrostatic clamp;
measuring a current associated with the clamping voltage
applied to the one or more electrodes at a plurality of times, therein
defining a plurality of measured currents;
integrating the plurality of measured currents over time, therein
defining respective charge values associated with a respective
plurality of clamping forces between the workpiece and electrostatic
clamp;
storing the plurality of charge values in a memory; and
determining a clamping capability of the electrostatic clamp via
a controller, wherein determining the clamping capability of the
electrostatic clamp comprises determining a current status of the
clamping capability of the electrostatic clamp based on a charge value
that is currently determined and a plurality of charge values that are
3
Appeal2018-001004
Application 13/729,524
previously stored, and wherein determining the clamping capability of
the electrostatic clamp comprises predicting a future status of the
clamping capability of the electrostatic clamp based on a charge value
that is currently determined and a plurality of charge values that are
previously stored, and wherein predicting the future status [ ofJ the
clamping capability of the electrostatic clamp comprises forming a
model of the plurality of charge values that are previously stored and
the charge value that is currently determined.
App. Br. 15-16.
The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 2-9, 12, 13, and 15-17 is sustained
for the reasons set forth in the Final Office Action dated December 22, 2016
("Final Act.") and the Examiner's Answer. We add the following for emphasis.
B. DISCUSSION
The Examiner determines that the claimed invention is directed to a judicial
exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more. Final Act. 8.
More specifically, referring to the three-step analysis under the guidance
provided in the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility,
79 Fed. Reg. 74618-74633 (Dec. 16, 2014), the Examiner determines that claims
2-9 belong to the statutory class of a machine and claims 12, 13, and 15-17 belong
the statutory class of a process under step one of the analysis. Final Act. 8. Under
step two of the analysis, the Examiner determines that the claims recite an abstract
idea that is subject to a judicial exception. 3 Final Act. 8. According to the
Examiner:
The method steps recited in Claim 15 for integrating the plurality of
measured currents over time, therein defining respective charge
values associated with a respective plurality of clamping forces
3 Step two of the analysis corresponds to "determin[ing] whether the claims at
issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept" discussed in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd
v. CLS Banklnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). That is, are the claims drawn to
an abstract idea? Id.
4
Appeal2018-001004
Application 13/729,524
between the workpiece and electrostatic clamp describe the abstract
mathematical calculation of force and charge. The integration of
charge is further an abstract mathematical calculation. The step of
determining a clamping capability of the electrostatic clamp relies
on the abstract physical relationship of electrical charge and
electrostatic force that provides the clamping capability. The
recitation of wherein determining the clamping capability of the
electrostatic clamp comprises determining a current status of the
clamping capability of the electrostatic clamp based on a charge
value that is currently determined and a plurality of charge values
that are previously stored describes the abstract concept of
comparing information regarding a sample or test subject to a control
or target data. Claim 15 further describes the abstract idea of
mathematically predicting a future status of clamping capability based
upon the physical values of electrical charge that were conventionally
stored and by way of mathematical models.
Final Act. 8.
The Examiner explains that step three of the analysis "looks to determine if
there is 'substantially more' than just the abstract ideas."4 Final Act. 9. In this
case, the Examiner finds that the electrostatic clamp recited in independent claim
15 "describes conventional equipment, and thus does not provide significantly
more than the abstract ideas identified above." Final Act. 9.
The Examiner determines that system claims 2-6 implement the method
steps of claims 12-14, 16, and 17, and claim 4, like claim 15, recites an abstract
4 Step three of the analysis corresponds to "examin[ing] the elements of the claim
to determine whether it contains an 'inventive concept' sufficient to 'transform' the
claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application" discussed in Alice, 134
S. Ct. at 2357. "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional
features' to ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [ abstract idea]."' Id. ( quoting Mayo Collaborative Services v.
Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 77 (2012)).
5
Appeal2018-001004
Application 13/729,524
idea. See Final Act. 9 ( determining that claims 15 and 4 are analogous).
Moreover, the Examiner finds that:
The claimed structure [ recited in claim 4] including the recitation of
An electrostatic clamp monitoring system, comprising: an
electrostatic clamp [ ... ] one or more electrodes; a power supply
electrically coupled to the electrostatic clamp, wherein the power
supply is configured to selectively supply a clamping voltage to the
one or more electrodes of the electrostatic clamp; a data
acquisition system operably coupled to the power supply and
configured to measure a current supplied to the one or more
electrodes, therein defining a measured current; a controller ; and
a memory describe conventional and well-known equipment.
Final Act. 9.
In the Appeal Brief, the Appellants do not direct us to any error in the
Examiner's determination that claims 4 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea. 5
Rather, the Appellants focus their arguments on step three of the analysis discussed
above (i.e., whether there is "significantly more" than just the abstract idea). App.
Br. 4.
First, the Appellants argue that claim 4 recites an electrostatic clamp, a
power supply, a data acquisition system, a controller, and a memory that are
configured to perform specific functions in an electrostatic clamp monitoring
system. App. Br. 4--5. Similarly, the Appellants argue that claim 15 recites
specific steps for monitoring a clamping capability of an electrostatic clamp, i.e.,
5 In the Reply Brief, for the first time on appeal, the Appellants argue that "all
pending claims are not directed toward abstract ideas." Reply Brief dated
November 8, 2017 ("Reply Br."), at 8. The Appellants' argument is not responsive
to an argument raised for the first time in the Examiner's Answer, and the
Appellants do not show good cause why the argument could not have been raised
in the Appeal Brief. Therefore, the Appellants' argument will not be considered on
appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2016).
6
Appeal2018-001004
Application 13/729,524
applying a clamping voltage to one or more electrodes, measuring a current at a
plurality of times, integrating the measured currents over time, and storing the
generated charge values in a memory. App. Br. 5. The Appellants argue that the
Examiner has not provided any evidence showing that the claimed elements are
either well-known or conventional. App. Br. 5.
Referring to McAnn, 6 the Examiner explains that the Appellants were
"provided evidence that the asserted structure is conventional to the technological
environment recited in the claim." Ans. 8; see also Ans. 9 (mapping the system
illustrated in McAnn Figure 1 to Appellants' claim 4); Ans. 11 (finding that "the
collection by computerized means of voltage and current measurements to the
electrodes of an electrostatic claim [ sic, clamp] was entirely conventional" ( citing
McAnn ,r 38, McAnn Fig. 1)). The Appellants do not offer a response. See,
generally, Reply Br. 2-8.
Second, the Appellants argue that if the claimed controller and/or operation
thereof is considered to be a judicial exception, the electrostatic clamp monitoring
system of claim 4 and the method of claim 15 recite additional elements that "add
'significantly more' to the judicial exception by improving the technology or
technical field, and applying the elements and providing meaningful limitations to
a particular machine." App. Br. 6 (emphasis omitted). More specifically, the
Appellants argue that the system of claim 4 and the method of claim 15 "improve[]
the operation of the electrostatic clamp over conventional clamping systems"7 by
6 US 2011/0032654 Al, published February 10, 2011. McAnn was applied in the
withdrawn obviousness rejection of claims 2-9, 12, 13, and 15-17. See Final Act.
10-17; Ans. 2.
7 In the Reply Brief, for the first time on appeal, the Appellants argue that the
claimed invention improves previously-known systems and methods by
"predicting a future status of the clamping ability while minimizing production time
7
Appeal2018-001004
Application 13/729,524
"improv[ing] a clamping capability of the electrostatic clamp." App. Br. 6-7
( emphasis omitted). According to the Appellants, "the controller may determine a
trending of a 'health' or 'clamping capability' of the electrostatic clamp over
numerous clamping cycles by comparing the currently determined charge value to
historical determined charge values." App. Br. 6. The Appellants also argue that
the controller of claim 4 predicts a future status of the clamping capability based
on determined charge values and the method of claim 15 predicts a future status of
the clamping capability by forming a model of the previously stored charge values
and the currently determined charge value. App. Br. 7-8. According to the
Appellants, the claimed model "solves a previously-unsolved technological
problem of predicting the ability of an electrostatic clamp, at any given time, to
adequately clamp a workpiece thereto." App. Br. 8 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner explains that "the prediction of a future status of clamping
capability is a mathematical algorithm ineligible by judicial exception." Final Act.
3. According to the Examiner, there is no recitation in claim 4 or claim 15
reasonably suggesting that the claimed invention improves "the operation of the
electrostatic clamp over conventional clamping systems." Ans. 16. To the extent
that the claimed electrostatic clamp is tested through electrical rather than
mechanical, i.e., conventional, means, the Examiner explains that electrical
monitoring of electrostatic clamps is conventionally done, as evidenced by the
computerized electrical testing system taught in McAnn. Ans. 17.
losses." Reply Br. 7 ( original emphasis omitted). The Appellants' argument is not
responsive to an argument raised for the first time in the Examiner's Answer, and
the Appellants do not show good cause why the argument could not have been
raised in the Appeal Brief. Therefore, the Appellants' argument will not be
considered on appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2016).
8
Appeal2018-001004
Application 13/729,524
The Examiner finds that the improvement alleged by the Appellants "is
found entirely in the mathematical processing, which is enabled by an entirely
conventional combination ofhardware." Ans. 7. More specifically, the Examiner
finds that "[t]he putative improvement offered by the present invention to this
entirely conventional system is found in the application of mathematics to produce
mathematical answers ( clamping capability and predicted future status) from
conventionally obtained information (in particular, an electrical current)." Ans. 19.
Based on the foregoing, we find that the evidence of record establishes that
all of the elements recited in claim 4 are conventional elements configured to
enable the controller to be programmed to (1) determine a clamping capability of
the electrostatic clamp and (2) predict a future status of the clamping capability of
the electrostatic clamp. No elements recited in claim 4 are configured to perform
functions other than those functions necessary to enable the controller to be
programmed as claimed. Similarly, the applying, measuring, integrating, and
storing steps recited in claim 15 are performed using conventional elements to
program the controller to ( 1) determine a clamping capability of the electrostatic
clamp and (2) form a model to predict a future status of the clamping capability of
the electrostatic clamp. Once a clamping capability is determined or a future status
is predicted, no further action is recited in claim 15. Thus, on this record, we agree
with the Examiner that the mathematical answers provided by the claimed
invention do not "improve the conventional machine-the answers are produced
and their use is left unspecified." Ans. 19.
The rejection of claims 2-9, 12, 13, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is
sustained.
C. DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
9
Appeal2018-001004
Application 13/729,524
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l ).
AFFIRMED
10