Ex Parte Ravid

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2017

13095279 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 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.
13/095,279 04/27/2011 ABRAHAM RAVID 15633USA 2301
55649 7590 10/02/2017
Moser Taboada / Applied Materials, Inc.
1030 Broad Street
Suite 203
Shrewsbury, NJ 07702
EXAMINER
MCANDREW, CHRISTOPHER P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2858
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2017 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):
ataboada@mtiplaw.com
docketing@mtiplaw.com
llinardakis @ mtiplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ABRAHAM RAVID
Appeal 2016-006769
Application 13/095,2791
Technology Center 2800
Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals2 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1-13 and 15-20 in the above-identified
application.3 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
REVERSE.
1 Appellant identifies Applied Materials, Inc. as the real party in interest.
See Appeal Br. 2, Nov. 27, 2015.
2 Appeal Br.; Reply Br., June 23, 2016.
3 Final Office Action, May 21, 2015 [hereinafter Final Action]; Examiner’
Answer, May 12, 2016 [hereinafter Answer],
Appeal 2016-006769
Application 13/095,279
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention relates to “methods and apparatus for
determining parameters in metal-containing films,” and in particular the film
thickness. Spec. ^ 1. Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of determining a parameter of a metal-
containing film, comprising:
generating a first magnetic field by flowing an alternating
current through a coil disposed adjacent to and spaced apart
from the metal-containing film, wherein the first magnetic field
induces a second magnetic field proximate the metal-containing
film;
heating the metal-containing film from a first temperature
to a second temperature;
measuring the temperature of the metal-containing film at
a plurality of times over a time period as the metal-containing
film is heated from the first temperature to the second
temperature;
determining a rate of temperature change based on the
measured temperature;
measuring a response of the first magnetic field to the
second magnetic field as the metal-containing film is heated
from the first temperature to the second temperature; and
correlating the response with the rate of temperature
change of the metal-containing film as the metal-containing
film is heated from the first temperature to the second
temperature to determine a thickness of the metal-containing
film.
Appeal Br. 17. Claims 12 and 18, the only other independent claims, recite
similar limitations. See id. at 19-20.
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
1. Claims 1, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
paragraph 2, as being indefinite. See Final Action 8.
2
Appeal 2016-006769
Application 13/095,279
2. Claims 1-5, 9-11, 13-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fujita4 in view of Swinehart.5 See Final
Action 9-14.
3. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fujita in view of Wampler.6 See id. at 14-20.
4. Claims 6-8, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fujita in view of Swinehart and Moulder.7 See id.
at 20-25.
5. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fujita in view of Swinehart and Choi.8 See id. at 25-26.
DISCUSSION
Indefiniteness Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1,12, and 18 as indefinite because the
Examiner reads the phrase “based on the measured temperature” as referring
to a single temperature, and it is unclear to which of the measured
temperatures the claim refers. Final Action 8.
Appellant argues that the term “measured temperature” refers to the
varying temperature as the temperature changes, and that the claim language
reasonably apprises a person of ordinary skill in the art as to this meaning.
See Appeal Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 3. We find Appellant’s arguments persuasive,
4 Fujita et al., US 2009/0256558 A1 (published Oct. 15, 2009).
5 Swinehart et al., US 5,367,285 (issued Nov. 22, 1994).
6 Wampler, US 4,767,591 (issued Aug. 30, 1988).
7 Moulder et al., US 4,950,990 (issued Aug. 21, 1990).
8 Choi et al., US 2007/0072005 Al (published Mar. 29, 2007).
3
Appeal 2016-006769
Application 13/095,279
and conclude that in light of the claim language and Specification, the term
“measured temperature” would not be unclear or ambiguous to a person of
ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Obviousness Rejections
Fujita discloses a method for measuring film thickness by placing a
coil near the film, sweeping the frequency of current through the coil to
magnetically induce eddy currents in the film while measuring the mutual
inductance, and looking for an inflection point in the graph of inductance
versus frequency. See Fujita 40, 99, Figs. 1-3.
The Examiner cites Fujita as the primary reference for all the rejected
claims, and points to paragraph 99 of Fujita as teaching that “the Joule heat
disclosed necessarily heats the thin conductive film from an initial
temperature when the system is off to a different, higher temperature when
the system is on.” Id. at 10. However, the Examiner acknowledges that
Fujita does not explicitly teach “measuring the temperature of the metal-
containing film at a plurality of times over a time period as the metal-
containing film is heated from the first temperature to the second
temperature,” or “determining a rate of temperature changed based on the
measured temperature.” Final Action 11.
For the temperature “measuring” and “determining” steps, the
Examiner points to Swinehart, which refers to measuring a relation between
resistance and temperature. See id. at 11 (citing Swinehart 3:25-67).
According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to combine
Swinehart with Fujita
4
Appeal 2016-006769
Application 13/095,279
because the relationship between the rate of change of resistance
to the rate of change in the temperature of the thin film are not
separable and are directly related; knowing one allows you to
predict the other which allows for better more accurate measure­
ments. It would be obvious because one would have all of the
information from the method disclosed in Fujita and the calcula­
tions needed to determine a rate, as the shown in Swinehart, are
simple and provide an abundance of information.
Id. at 12.
With regard to claim 12, the Examiner points to Wampler, which
shows a graph modeling how resistance changes at different implant
fluences of a carbon film bombarded with deuterium in a plasma. See
Wampler Fig. 4, 7:1-15. Citing this graph and its description, the Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to model the temperature of
Fujita’s metal film over time, based on energy provided,
because modeling is an accepted practice when trying to predict
the performance of a material to unknown conditions so as to
limit possible failures and maximize output. It is more cost ef­
fective to simulate materials and their responses in a computer
than perform expensive experiments in the lab. It would be ob­
vious because one would have all of the information from the
method disclosed in Fujita and the calculations needed to deter­
mine a rate, as the shown in Swinehart and Wampler, are simple
and provide an abundance of information.
Final Action 16-17.
Appellant makes the following arguments: (1) that it is not trivial to
calculate Joule heating from eddy currents; (2) that Fujita provides no
teaching to correlate Joule heating with temperature; (3) that Fujita does not
teach correlating a response of the first magnetic field to the second
magnetic field as temperature changes; and (4) that Swinehearf s disclosure
about the change in resistance, an electrical quantity, does not teach
5
Appeal 2016-006769
Application 13/095,279
determining a rate of temperature change based on the measured
temperature. See Appeal Br. 7-9. Appellant also argues that, with respect to
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12, Wampler “merely plot[s] relative
resistance v. implant fluence for deuterium at four different and constant
temperatures,” which does not teach modeling the temperature of the metal-
containing film over a time period based on the amount of energy provided
to heat the film as temperature increases over a range. Id. at 11-12.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown that the
rejected independent claims 1, 12, and 18 are obvious over the combination
of either Fujita and Swineheart or Fujita and Wampler. While Fujita teaches
that the film temperature increases when there are eddy currents, none of the
references directly or indirectly relate film thickness to a temperature profile
change over time. Moreover, the Examiner has not persuasively shown that
a person of ordinary skill in the art would have derived that relation based
solely on the cited references and established principles known in the art.
For the above reasons, the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting
independent claims 1, 12, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as well as all
dependent claims. Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-
13 and 15-2.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
6