Ex Parte Obweger et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 10, 2012

10560812 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 10, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte RAINER OBWEGER,
Alexander Pfeuffer, Martin Koffler, and Alexander Lippert
________________

Appeal 2011-003028
Application 10/560,812
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, PETER F. KRATZ, and
MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-003028
Application 10/560,812

2
A. Introduction1, 2
Rainer Obweger, Alexander Pfeuffer, Martin Koffler, and Alexander
Lippert (“Obweger”) timely appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final
rejection3 of claims 1, 2, 4-17, 22-25 and 27-31.4 We have jurisdiction.
35 U.S.C. § 6. We REVERSE, substantially for the reasons advanced by
Obweger.
The subject matter on appeal relates to an apparatus for the ultrasonic
cleaning of wafers. The apparatus comprises holding means to hold a wafer
substantially parallel between a lower plate and a closely spaced parallel
upper plate. (Spec. 1-2, para. [007].) The lower plate is fitted with one or
more vibrators (such as a piezoelectric transducer). (Id. at 2, para. [009].)
A liquid is introduced into the gaps between the wafer and the upper and
lower plates. (Id.) The lower plate transmits vibrational energy from the
vibrators to the liquid, which in turn transmits the vibrational energy to the
wafer. (Id. at para. [010].) Vibrational energy that is transmitted through
the wafer is transmitted by the liquid in the upper gap to the upper plate. In

1 Application 10/560,812, Device and Method for Wet Treating Disc-Like
Substrates, filed 15 December 2005 as the national stage of an international
application filed 17 June 2004, and claiming the benefit of an application
filed in Austria on 24 June 2003. The specification is cited as “Spec.” The
real party in interest is listed as Lam Research AG. (Appeal Brief, filed 12
July 2010 (“Br.”), 1.)
2 Heard 5 January 2012. The Official Transcript, which was not available
when this Opinion was entered, will be made of record.
3 Office action mailed 8 January 2010.
4 The remaining pending claims 18, 20, 21, 32-35 and 37 have been
withdrawn from consideration.
Appeal 2011-003028
Application 10/560,812

3
this way, interferences arising from reflected sound waves are said to be
avoided. (Id. at para. [011].) In the embodiments of interest in this appeal,
the plates may be rotated relative to one another. (Id. at 2, para. [014]
through 3, para. [019].) The relative rotation is said to lead to equalize the
intensity of the ultrasonic waves applied to the wafer. (Id. at 2, para. [012].)
Claim 1 is representative, and reads:
1. A device for wet treatment of wafers, comprising:
a first plate;
a second plate substantially parallel to said first plate;
holding means for holding a wafer between said first
and said second plate substantially parallel to said
plates;
first dispensing means for introducing fluid into a first
gap between said first plate and a wafer when being
treated;
second dispensing means for introducing fluid into a
second gap between said second plate and a wafer
when being treated;
at least one vibrating element acoustically coupled to
at least said second plate; and
rotating means for rotating said holding means and
said second plate relative to each other about an axis
substantially perpendicular to said second plate.
(Claims App., Br. 23; indentation and emphasis added.)
Claim 6 reads:
6. The device according to claim 1, wherein said second plate of
itself is not rotatable.
(Claims App., Br. 24.)
Appeal 2011-003028
Application 10/560,812

4
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:5
A. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(2), as allegedly
negating claim 1.
B. Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13, and 14 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of
Aegerter,6 Engesser,7 and Cavazza.8
C. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
the combined teachings of Aegerter, Engesser, Cavazza, and
Azar.9
D. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
the combined teachings of Aegerter, Engesser, Cavazza, and
Lawson10
E. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
the combined teachings of Aegerter, Engesser, Cavazza, and
Donde.11
F. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
the combined teachings of Aegerter, Engesser, Cavazza, and
Otsuki.12

5 Examiner’s Answer mailed 29 September 2010 (“Ans.”).
6 Brian K. Aegerter et al., Selective Treatment of Microelectronic
Workpiece Surfaces, U.S. Patent 6,632,292 B1 (14 October 2003), based on
an application filed 28 September 2000.
7 Philipp Engesser, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0050244 A1
(2002).
8 Gilbert Cavazza, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0162570 A1
(2002).
9 Lawrence Azar, U.S. Patent 6,890,390 B2 (2005), based on an application
filed 23 May 2003.
10 Robert M. Lawson, U.S. Patent 4,401,131 (1983).
11 Arik Donde and Herzel Laor, U.S. Patent 5,788,453 (1998).
12 Masashi Otsuki et al., U.S. Patent 6,532,977 B2 (18 March 2003).
Appeal 2011-003028
Application 10/560,812

5
G. Claims 22-24 and 27-30 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of
Aegerter, Engesser, Cavazza, Kim,13 and Azar.
H. Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
the combined teachings of Aegerter, Engesser, Cavazza, Kim,
Azar, and Motoda.14
I. Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
the combined teachings of Aegerter, Engesser, Cavazza, and
Kim.
B. Discussion
Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record.
The final limitation of claim 1, which is also present in the other
independent claim (claim 22), recites “rotating means for rotating said
holding means and said second plate relative to each other about an axis
substantially perpendicular to said second plate.” (Claims App., Br. 26;
emphasis added). As indicated by the plain language of the claim, the
rotation of the holding means, which holds a wafer, relative to the second
plate, does not require that the second plate be rotatable. Thus, dependent
claim 6, which requires that the second plate is not rotatable, is not
inconsistent with claim 1. Accordingly, we REVERSE the rejection of
claim 6 as indefinite.

13 Yong Bae Kim et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication
2004/0132318 A1 (8 July 2004), based on an application
filed 4 January 2003.
14 Kimio Motoda and Kiyohisa Tateyama, U.S. Patent 5,762,708 (1998).
App
App

desc
moto
by A
Exam
rotat
p
Insp
supp
eal 2011-0
lication 10
In the re
ribes a wa
r assembl
ergerter at
iner finds
e relative t
{Fig. 4 s
ortion [11
ection of F
orting the
03028
/560,812
maining re
fer treating
y 124, sho
column 9
further th
o the seco
{A
hows a cro
5], which r
igure 4 an
Examiner
jections, t
apparatus
wn in Figu
, line 62, t
at this arra
nd plate.
ergerter F
ss section
otates the
d the cited
’s finding
6
he Examin
that comp
re 4 (repro
hrough co
ngement p
(Ans. 5, 1s
igure 4 is
of a wafe
entire waf
passage r
of fact. Ra
er finds th
rises a ro
duced be
lumn 10, l
ermits the
t para., las
shown be
r housing
er housing
eveals no
ther, work
at Aergert
tor 115 an
low) and d
ine 14. Th
holding m
t sentence
low}
[116] and
and its co
credible ev
piece hou
er
d a rotor
escribed
e
eans to
.)
rotor
ntents}
idence
sing 116,
Appeal 2011-003028
Application 10/560,812

7
which holds wafer 134, is attached to rotor portion 115 via support
members 118, which engage radial flange 122 that extends from workpiece
housing 116. Rotor motor 124 thus rotates the entire workpiece housing 116
about central axis 128. The Examiner has not explained how the means that
hold the wafer are rotated relative to the second plate, which corresponds to
lower chamber member 142.
The Examiner does not rely on any of the remaining prior art
references in any way that cures this defect.
C. Order
We REVERSE all the appealed rejections.
REVERSED

ssl