Ex Parte Ramachandran et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 28, 2012

11561868 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 28, 2012)

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.
11/561,868 11/20/2006 Balasubramanian Ramachandran 010804 USA FEP/OXD 8232
44257 7590 08/29/2012
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX
3040 POST OAK BOULEVARD, SUITE 1500
HOUSTON, TX 77056
EXAMINER
CAMPBELL, NATASHA N.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1714
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BALASUBRAMANIAN RAMACHANDRAN, TAE JUNG KIM,
JUNG HOON SUN, JOUNG WOO LEE, JOONG HWA LIN,
PHIL SANG LEE, and MICHAEL JOSEPH RANISH
____________

Appeal 2011-000788
Application 11/561,868
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, PETER F. KRATZ, and
BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 16-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 16 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is set
forth below:
16. A method of removing impurities deposited in an annealing
Appeal 2011-000788
Application 11/561,868

2
chamber, comprising:
introducing phosphorus doped substrates into the annealing chamber;
performing an annealing process of the phosphorus doped substrates
in the annealing chamber, wherein the annealing process results in
phosphorus dopant being deposited in the annealing chamber;
removing the phosphorus doped substrates from the annealing
chamber;
flowing oxygen into the annealing chamber and applying heat to
volatilize the deposited phosphorus dopant in the annealing chamber;
exhausting the chamber to remove volatilized phosphorus dopant from
the annealing chamber; and
flowing an inert gas into the annealing chamber to remove oxygen
from the annealing chamber.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Tanaka 2003/0134459 A1 Jul. 17, 2003
MacLeish 5,968,279 Oct. 19, 1999
Savas 6,236,023 B1 May 22, 2001
Zhao 5,983,906 Nov. 16, 1999

THE REJECTIONS1
1. Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tanaka et al. as evidenced by MacLeish, in view of Savas.

1 In the Answer, the Examiner has withdrawn the Ji reference from each
rejection. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2011-000788
Application 11/561,868

3
2. Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tanaka, as evidenced by MacLeish, in view of Savas, as
applied to claim 16, and further in view of Zhao.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in determining that the applied art suggests the
claimed subject matter, and in particular, the aspect of claim 16 pertaining to
“flowing oxygen into the annealing chamber and applying heat to volatilize
the deposited phosphorus dopant in the annealing chamber” and
“exhausting the chamber to remove volatilized phosphorus dopant from the
annealing chamber”?
We answer this question in the negative and AFFIRM.
ANALYSIS

As an initial matter, Appellants have not presented separate arguments
for all of the rejected claims. Rather, Appellants’ arguments are principally
directed to independent claim 16. Any claim not separately argued will
stand or fall with its respective independent claim. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Also, we focus on Rejection 1, and our determination
made with respect to Rejection 1 is dispositive for Rejection 2.
We essentially adopt the Examiner’s findings pertinent to the issue
raised by Appellants for the rejections. We therefore incorporate the
Examiner’s position as set forth in the Answer. We add the following for
emphasis only.
It is the Examiner’s basic position that it would have been obvious to
have modified the method taught by Tanaka as evidenced by MacLeish to
Appeal 2011-000788
Application 11/561,868

4
include the cleaning steps as taught by Savas in order to remove deposited
impurities from the annealing chamber so that these impurities do not
contaminate future substrate annealing processes, because one would have
been motivated to perform an in-situ cleaning with a cleaning gas to reduce
system down time as taught in column 2, lines 16-17 of Savas. Ans. 5-6.
The Examiner explains that, although the applied art does not
explicitly teach that the process as modified would cause deposited
phosphorus dopants to volatilize, because Savas utilizes similar conditions
as described in Appellants’ Specification in conducting the process, then
such a result would occur when conducting the modified process according
to the teachings of the applied art. Ans. 6. In other words, implicit in the
Examiner’s position is that the additional advantage of phosphorus deposited
dopant removal would have flowed naturally from the proposed combination
of Tanaka, MacLeish and Savas, and we agree. "The fact that appellant has
recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following
the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the
differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58,
60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (The prior art taught combustion fluid
analyzers which used labyrinth heaters to maintain the samples at a uniform
temperature. Although appellant showed an unexpectedly shorter response
time was obtained when a labyrinth heater was employed, the Board held
this advantage would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the
prior art.). See also Lantech Inc. v. Kaufman Co. of Ohio Inc., 878 F.2d
1446, (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1058 (1990) (unpublished -
not citable as precedent) ("The recitation of an additional advantage
Appeal 2011-000788
Application 11/561,868

5
associated with doing what the prior art suggests does not lend patentability
to an otherwise unpatentable invention.").
On page 3 of the Reply Brief, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s
referral to Appellants’ Specification in the rejections is in error because the
Specification is not available as prior art. However, the Examiner does not
rely upon the Specification as prior art; rather, the Examiner refers to the
Specification to explain how the removal of deposited phosphorous dopants
would flow naturally from following the modified process according to the
teachings of the applied art, because similar conditions are performed, which
Appellants do not dispute.
In view of the above, we affirm Rejection 1. Because Appellants rely
upon similar arguments for Rejection 2, we also affirm Rejection 2.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
Each rejection is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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

tc