Ex Parte OBWEGER et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 18, 2019

14469363 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/469,363 08/26/2014
91286 7590 04/22/2019
Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (Lam)
P.O. Box 828
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Rainer OBWEGER
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.
3380-lUS 5187
EXAMINER
BELL, SPENCER E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1711
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/22/2019 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):
sstevens@hdp.com
troymailroom@hdp.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAINER OBWEGER, ANDREAS GLEISSNER, THOMAS
WIRNSBERGER, FRANZ KUMNIG, ALESSANDRO BALDARO,
CHRISTIAN THOMAS FISCHER, MU HUNG CHOU, RAF AL
RYSZARD DYLEWICZ, NATHAN LA VDOVSKY, and
IV AN L. BERRY III
Appeal2018-004889
Application 14/469,363
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.
DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Applicant ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Primary Examiner's final decision to reject claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-16, and
24--38. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The Appellant is the Applicant, Lam Research AG (Application Data Sheet
filed December 16, 2014, 7), which is also listed as the real party in interest
(Appeal Brief filed December 11, 2017 ("Appeal Br."), 3).
2 Appeal Br. 11-32; Reply Brief filed April 9, 2018 ("Reply Br."), 2-24;
Final Office Action entered September 13, 2017 ("Final Act."), 3-15;
Examiner's Answer entered March 8, 2018 ("Ans."), 3-7.
Appeal2018-004889
Application 14/469,363
I. BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to an apparatus for processing
wafer-shaped articles such as semiconductor wafers (Specification filed
August 26, 2014 ("Spec."), 1, 11. 5-7; Drawings filed August 26, 2014, Figs.
1-3). The three independent claims on appeal (claims 1, 35, and 37) are
reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief, as follows:
1. A device for processing a wafer, the device
compnsmg:
a process chamber providing a gas-tight enclosure;
a rotary chuck located within the process chamber
and above the wafer, wherein the rotary chuck comprises a first
plate, wherein the first plate is located above the wafer and
rotates with the rotary chuck, wherein the rotary chuck is adapted
to hold the wafer, and wherein the first plate is cooled via a first
cooling fluid;
a heater positioned relative to the rotary chuck and
facing an underside of the wafer, wherein the heater is
configured to heat the underside of the wafer, wherein the heater
emits radiation having a maximum intensity in a wavelength
range between 390-550 nanometers,
wherein the rotary chuck holds the wafer between
the first plate and the heater, wherein the heater heats the
underside of the wafer, wherein no heater is disposed on an
upper side of the wafer, and wherein the upper side opposes the
underside; and
a first liquid dispenser positioned relative to the
chuck and configured to dispense a process liquid onto the upper
side of the wafer, wherein the upper side is opposite the
underside of the wafer,
wherein
the process chamber comprises an upper
region above the wafer in which an outlet of the first liquid
dispenser is located and a lower region below the wafer in which
the heater is located, and
the heater is non-rotatably mounted within
the process chamber.
2
Appeal2018-004889
Application 14/469,363
35. A device for processmg a wafer, the device
compnsmg:
a process chamber providing a gas-tight enclosure;
a rotary chuck located within the process chamber
and above the wafer, wherein the rotary chuck comprises a first
plate, wherein the first plate is located above the wafer and
rotates with the rotary chuck, wherein the rotary chuck is adapted
to hold the wafer, and wherein the first plate is cooled via a first
cooling fluid;
a heater positioned relative to the rotary chuck and
facing an underside of the wafer, wherein the heater is
configured to heat the underside of the wafer, wherein the heater
emits radiation having a maximum intensity in a wavelength
range between 390-550 nanometers;
a second plate disposed between the heater and the
rotary chuck, wherein the rotary chuck holds the wafer between
the first plate and the second plate;
a first liquid dispenser positioned relative to the
chuck and configured to dispense a process liquid onto an upper
side of the wafer, wherein the upper side is opposite the
underside of the wafer,
wherein
the process chamber comprises an upper
region above the wafer in which an outlet of the first liquid
dispenser is located and a lower region below the wafer in which
the heater is located, and
the heater is non-rotatably mounted within
the process chamber; and
a second liquid dispenser disposed in the lower
region and dispensing a second cooling fluid between the heater
and the second plate.
37. A device for processmg a wafer, the device
compnsmg:
a process chamber providing a gas-tight enclosure;
a rotary chuck located within the process chamber
and above the wafer, wherein the rotary chuck comprises a first
plate, wherein the first plate is located above the wafer and
3
Appeal2018-004889
Application 14/469,363
rotates with the rotary chuck, wherein the rotary chuck is adapted
to hold the wafer, and wherein the first plate is cooled via a first
cooling fluid;
a heater positioned relative to the rotary chuck and
facing an underside of the wafer, wherein the heater is
configured to heat the underside of the wafer, wherein the heater
emits radiation having a maximum intensity in a wavelength
range between 390-550 nanometers, wherein the heater
comprises an array of light-emitting diodes, and
wherein the rotary chuck holds the wafer between
the first plate and the heater;
a first liquid dispenser positioned relative to the
chuck and configured to dispense a process liquid onto an upper
side of the wafer, wherein the upper side is opposite the
underside of the wafer,
wherein
the process chamber comprises an upper
region above the wafer in which an outlet of the first liquid
dispenser is located and a lower region below the wafer in which
the heater is located, and
the heater is non-rotatably mounted within
the process chamber; and
a second dispenser disposed in the lower region and
dispensing a second cooling fluid, wherein the second cooling
fluid is circulated around the light-emitting diodes to prevent the
light-emitting diodes from overheating.
(Appeal Br. 33-34, 38, 39--40.)
II. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, the Examiner maintains several rejections under AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103, as follows:
A. Claims 1-3, 5, 10, 11, 13-15, 24--27, 29, and 34--37 as
unpatentable over Frank et al. 3 ("Frank") in view of Kasai et
3 US 2013/0160260 Al, published June 27, 2013.
4
Appeal2018-004889
Application 14/469,363
al. 4 ("Kasai '377");
B. Claims 6, 7, and 30 as unpatentable over Frank in view of Kasai
'377 and further in view of Kasai et al. 5 ("Kasai '272");
C. Claims 8, 9, and 31-33 as unpatentable over Frank in view of
Kasai '377 and further in view of Jeong et al. 6 ("Jeong");
D. Claim 16 as unpatentable over Frank in view of Kasai '377 and
further in view of Huang et al. 7 ("Huang");
E. Claim 28 as unpatentable over Frank in view of Kasai '377 and
Jeong, and further in view of Huang; and
F. Claim 38 as unpatentable over Frank in view of Kasai '377 and
further in view of Gerling et al. 8 ("Gerling").
(Ans. 3-7; Final Act. 3-15.)
III. DISCUSSION
Claim 1. The Examiner's principal obviousness rationale is that
although Frank's device differs from the claimed device in that the prior art
teaches a heater that is positioned above a plate and a wafer, a person having
ordinary skill in the art would have "revers[ed], or rearrang[ed], the
components to be in a different order" and that "[u]pon the modification, the
results would be expected: the heater would heat an underside of the wafer
instead of the upper side, which may be required for processing a particular
4 US 2010/0314377 Al, published December 16, 2010.
5 US 2008/0226272 Al, published September 18, 2008.
6 US 2006/0112980 Al, published June 1, 2006.
7 US 2015/0079803 Al, published March 19, 2015.
8 US 2014/0270731 Al, published September 18, 2014.
5
Appeal2018-004889
Application 14/469,363
wafer" (Ans. 3--4; see also Final Act. 4). The Examiner further advances an
alternative rationale based on Kasai '377, which the Examiner finds as
teaching a heater 17 b (Kasai '3 77, Fig. 1) facing an underside of a wafer
(Ans. 4; Final Act. 4). The Examiner concludes that "[m]oving the heater of
Frank to a known location taught by Kasai '377 for the benefit of heating the
underside of a wafer would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art"
(Ans. 4; see also Final Act. 4).
We agree with the Appellant that the Examiner's rejection of claim 1
is not well-founded. As the Appellant points out (Appeal Br. 12), Frank
teaches cooling and heating on the same side relative to the wafer (Frank,
Fig. 1 ). Specifically, Frank describes an apparatus for treating ( e.g., etching,
cleaning, rinsing, and any other surface treatment) a wafer-shaped article W,
which is held by a rotary chuck 30 in a position depending downwardly from
the rotary chuck 30, where a plate 52 that rotates with the rotary chuck 30 is
positioned above an area occupied by the wafer-shaped article W (id. ,r,r 2,
4, 7, 17, 41; Fig. 1 ). Frank teaches that plate 52 serves to minimize
turbulence in the process fluids being used, to permit prevention of residual
heat transfer, and to minimize temperature differences during a drying
process by being cooled with deionized water (id. ,r,r 42--45). These
disclosures in Frank would have reasonably informed a person having
ordinary skill in the art that heater 62 and plate 52 cannot be reconfigured to
be on opposite sides of the wafer-shaped article W. Therefore, the
Examiner's flawed position that a person having ordinary skill in the art
would have rearranged Frank's heater 62 to be positioned below the wafer-
shaped article W, while retaining plate 52 above the wafer, constitutes
reversible error.
6
Appeal2018-004889
Application 14/469,363
The Examiner's alternative rationale based on Kasai '377's teachings
is also insufficient. As the Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 13), Kasai '377's
teachings relate to annealing a wafer (Kasai '377 i-f 1}-not etching,
cleaning, polishing, or depositing material on (i.e., surface treating) a wafer
as in Frank. Thus, although Kasai '3 77 teaches heating sources 17 a and 17 b
above and below wafer W (id., Fig. 1 ), which is annealed without any rotary
chuck typically used for surface treatment as in Frank, a person would not
have had any reason or motivation based on Kasai '377 to provide a heater
below Frank's wafer-shaped article W. Thus, the Examiner's statement that
"[m]oving the heater of Frank to a known location taught by Kasai '377 for
the benefit of heating the underside of a wafer" (Ans. 4) is not based on any
fact-based rational underpinning. Therefore, we also cannot uphold the
rejection based on the Examiner's alternative rationale. In re Nu Vasive, Inc.,
842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[T]he [PTO] must make the
necessary findings and have an adequate 'evidentiary basis for its findings"'
and must articulate logical and rational reasons supporting its decisions).
Claims 35 and 37. The Examiner's reasons in support of the
rejection of these claims are also based on the flawed combination of Frank
and Kasai '377 (Ans. 4--6). Therefore, we also do not sustain the rejection
as maintained against these claims for the same or similar reasons provided
above with respect to claim 1.
IV. SUMMARY
Rejections A through Fare not sustained. Therefore, the Examiner's
final decision to reject claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-16, and 24--38 is reversed.
REVERSED
7