Ex Parte Pan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 5, 2017

13672117 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 5, 2017)

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.
13/672,117 11/08/2012 Heng Pan 016345USA/FEP/RTP/PJT 4919
44257 7590 10/10/2017
PATTFRSON & SHFRTDAN T T P - - AnnlieH Materials EXAMINER
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
KAPLAN VERBITSKY, GAIL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2855
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/10/2017 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):
Pair_Eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HENG PAN, MATTHEW SCOTT ROGERS,
AARON MUIR HUNTER, and STEPHEN MOFFATT
Appeal 2016-008428
Application 13/672,117
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6—8, and 21—23. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim a substrate temperature measuring apparatus.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a chamber body;
a substrate support positioned within the chamber body;
a laser for directing light to a substrate supported on the
substrate support for thermally processing the substrate;
Appeal 2016-008428
Application 13/672,117
a reflection measurement system positioned within the
chamber body, the reflection measurement system including:
an emissometer;
an imaging device;
a light source positioned to direct light towards the
substrate support, the light source generating light at a
different wavelength than the laser;
a focus lens positioned to collect light reflected
from the surface of the substrate placed on the substrate
support, the focus lens positioned at a specular angle of
reflection relative to the light source; and
a beam splitter positioned to direct a first portion
of the light collected by the focus lens to the emissometer
which determines an emissivity of the substrate, and to
direct a second portion of the light collected by the focus
lens to the imaging device for generating a magnified
image of a diffraction pattern of the light reflected from
the surface of the substrate; and
a processing unit to determine a temperature of the
substrate based upon the emissivity of the substrate.
The References
Popil US 5,162,660 Nov. 10, 1992
Ledger US 5,293,214 Mar. 8, 1994
Bobel US 5,564,830 Oct. 15, 1996
Shigeoka US 6,479,801 B1 Nov. 12, 2002
Gelman US 2004/0164221 A1 Aug. 26, 2004
Sakata US 2006/0032433 A1 Feb. 16, 2006
Raad US 2008/0082288 A1 Apr. 3, 2008
Tanaka US 2011/0027918 A1 Feb. 3,2011
Morita US 2012/0025741 A1 Feb. 2, 2012
Anikitchev US 2012/0100640 A1
The Rejections
Apr. 26, 2012
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1,
2, 4, 7, 8, 21, and 23 over Bobel in view of Raad, Tanaka, Popil, Morita and
Shigeoka, claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 21, and 23 over Bobel in view of Raad, Tanaka,
2
Appeal 2016-008428
Application 13/672,117
Popil, Sakata and Shigeoka, claims 1, 4, and 6—8 over Anikitchev in view of
Raad, Popil, Morita, Tanaka, and Shigeoka, and claim 22 over 1) Bobel in
view of Raad, Tanaka, Popil, Morita, Shigeoka and Ledger, 2) Bobel in view
of Raad, Tanaka, Popil, Sakata, Shigeoka and either Ledger or Gelman, and
3) Anikitchev in view of Raad, Popil, Morita, Tanaka, Shigeoka and
Gelman.
OPINION
We reverse the rejections. We need address only the sole independent
claim, i.e., claim l.1 That claim requires a focus lens positioned at a
specular angle of reflection relative to a light source. To meet that claim
requirement the Examiner relies upon either Bobel or Anikitchev, in
combination with Popil (Final Act. 5, 9, 13).
Bobel simultaneously determines, while a wafer (1) is being coated,
the coating layer’s thickness and the wafer (l)’s temperature, using an
apparatus comprising a light radiation source (6), a first detector (7) which
measures, in a thermal radiation branch (B), the intensity of the wafer (l)’s
thermal radiation, and a second detector (8) which detects, in a reflectometer
branch (A), reflected radiation from the light source (6) and the wafer (1)
(col. 2,11. 45—52). The wafer (l)’s temperature is determined from the
detected radiation using an analog or digital signal processing device, and
the coating layer thickness is determined by comparison of a reflectometer
curve and theoretical layer-thickness dependence (col. 4,11. 46—52).
1 The Examiner does not rely upon Ledger or Gelman for any disclosure that
remedies the deficiency in the references applied to the independent claim as
to the limitations in that claim (Final Act. 14—17).
3
Appeal 2016-008428
Application 13/672,117
Anikitchev discloses a line-image-forming optical system (10)
comprising 1) a primary laser system (20) which emits an initial primary
laser beam (22) along a Z-direction optical axis (Al), 2) a beam conditioning
optical system (30) which is along optical axis Al downstream of the
primary laser system (20), receives the initial primary laser beam (22) and
forms therefrom a line-image-forming beam (32) which forms a line
image (36) at an X-Y image plane (IP), 3) a secondary laser system (50)
which emits an initial secondary laser beam (52) along a Z-direction optical
axis (A2), 4) a scanning optical system (60) which is along optical axis A2
downstream of the secondary laser system (50) and receives the initial
secondary laser beam (52) and forms therefrom a scanning laser beam (62)
which forms a secondary image (66) at the image plane (IP), and 5) a
controller (70) (H 39, 45^17; Fig. 1A).
Popil discloses “a sensitive surface roughness detector for on-line
detection of the roughness of a commercial grade newsprint sheet paper
sheet by sensing light specularly reflected from its surface” (col. 2,11. 6—10).
Popil directs collimated polarized light from a source (22) through a
focusing lens (26) onto an area of the paper sheet (web 12 A) from which
reflected light passes through, sequentially, a lens (28), an aperture (32),
another lens (34 (labeled 39 in Fig. 1)), a polarizer filter (38) and a notch
filter (37) before reaching a detector (36) (col. 3,11. 16—51; Fig. 1).
The Examiner concludes, with respect to the combination of both
Bobel and Anikitchev with Popil, that “it would have been obvious to one
skilled in the art so as to have the focus lens to be positioned at a specular
angle, as taught by Popil, in order to [collect or focus] all the light reflected
4
Appeal 2016-008428
Application 13/672,117
by the substrate, so as to achieve more accurate results of measurements”
(Final Act. 5, 9).
Establishing a prima facie case of obviousness requires an apparent
reason to modify the prior art as proposed by the Examiner. See KSR Int 7
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
The Examiner does not provide evidence or technical reasoning which
shows that the use of Popil’s specular reflection in Bobel’s or Anikitchev’s
devices would “achieve more accurate results of measurements” (Final
Act. 5, 9). Thus, the Examiner has not established that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have had an apparent reason to modify Bobel’s and
Anikitchev’s devices as proposed by the Examiner.
The Appellants’ claim 1 also requires a beam splitter “for generating a
magnified image of a diffraction pattern of the light reflected from the
surface of the substrate”. To meet that claim requirement the Examiner
relies upon the combined disclosures of 1) Bobel and either Morita or
Sakata, or 2) Anikitchev and Morita (Final Act. 5, 9, 13).
Morita discloses a charged particle accelerator in which “[w]hen
impurity fine particles are accelerated by an electric field and collide with
electrodes, the electric discharge suppressing layer made of ceramics or
alloy prevents metal vapor from being easily generated from the electrodes
and an ionized plasma from being easily produced, thus allowing electric
discharge between the electrodes to be suppressed” (1 6). In a transmission
electron microscope having charge particle accelerators, “diffraction patterns
are magnified and image formed on an object surface of a projection lens”
(123).
5
Appeal 2016-008428
Application 13/672,117
Sakata discloses a method for rapid x-ray structural analysis of
ultrafme structures such as wires, thin films, nanochannels, and electrodes in
solution (| 2). In two figures, Sakata shows a nanowire’s magnified
diffraction image (H 81, 83; Figs. 5, 6).
The Examiner concludes that “it would have been obvious to one
skilled in the art... to have a magnified diffraction pattern of the object so
as to [have it be properly displayed or have displayed it] onto a display, as
already suggested by Morita” (Final Act. 5, 9), and “it would have been
obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to
modify the device, disclosed by Bobel, so as to obtain a magnified
diffraction image, as taught by Sakata, so as to provide the user with the size
of crystal domains in the nanowires of the substrate, as already suggested by
Sakata” (Final Act. 13).
The Examiner does not address the differences between Bobel’s
apparatus for determining wafer coating thickness and temperature and
Morita’s charged particle accelerator or Sakata’s apparatus for rapid x-ray
structural analysis, or between Anikitchev’s line-image-forming system and
Morita’s charged particle accelerator, and establish that regardless of those
differences, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had an apparent
reason to use Morita’s transmission electron microscope’s magnified
diffraction pattern or Sakata’s nanowire’s magnified diffraction image in
Bobel’s wafer coating thickness and temperature determination apparatus, or
to use Morita’s transmission electron microscope’s magnified diffraction
pattern in Anikitchev’s line-image-forming system.
Thus, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness of the Appellants’ claimed apparatus.
6
Appeal 2016-008428
Application 13/672,117
DECISION/ORDER
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 21,
and 23 over Bobel in view of Raad, Tanaka, Popil, Morita and Shigeoka,
claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 21, and 23 over Bobel in view of Raad, Tanaka, Popil,
Sakata and Shigeoka, claims 1, 4 and 6—8 over Anikitchev in view of Raad,
Popil, Morita, Tanaka, and Shigeoka, and claim 22 over 1) Bobel in view of
Raad, Tanaka, Popil, Morita, Shigeoka and Ledger, 2) Bobel in view of
Raad, Tanaka, Popil, Sakata, Shigeoka and either Ledger or Gelman, and
3) Anikitchev in view of Raad, Popil, Morita, Tanaka, Shigeoka and Gelman
are reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
7