Ex Parte Shufflebotham et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2013

11017637 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PAUL KEVIN SHUFFLEBOTHAM and MICHAEL BARNES
____________

Appeal 2011-011901
Application 11/017,637
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, GAY ANN SPAHN, and
HYUN J. JUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-8 and 15-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Tsuji (US 5,569,810, issued Oct. 29, 1996) and Pang (US 6,194,628
B1, issued Feb. 27, 2001). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2011-011901
Application 11/017,637

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to an “apparatus for abatement of
reaction products such as perfluorocarbons and hydrofluorocarbons in
vacuum processing chambers.” Spec. 1, ll. 7-8. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the appealed subject matter.
1. An apparatus for abating fluorocarbons in gas
reaction products from a vacuum processing chamber
comprising:
a dielectric tube in fluid communication with an outlet
port of the vacuum processing chamber;
a coil disposed around the dielectric tube; and
an RF source, connected to the coil, wherein the coil is
adapted to dissociate fluorocarbons in the gas into smaller
molecules upon receiving RF energy from the RF source, and
wherein the RF source is adapted to provide sufficient RF
energy for such dissociation.

OPINION
Claims 1-8
The Examiner finds that Tsuji discloses “an apparatus for processing
fluorocarbons” including “a quartz chamber 1[1], coil 1[2], input to the
chamber and outlet to the chamber,” and that “[t]his structure clearly teaches
a dielectric tube, a coil disposed around the dielectric tube and an RF source
used to energize the gases in the tube.” Ans. 4. Without stating what is
lacking in Tsuji, the Examiner turns to Pang for its teaching that “harmful
waste from a plasma process can be successfully eliminated using a quartz
tube,” and “to use coil 52 to energize and eliminate harmful by-products of
the plasma process.” Id. (citing Pang, col. 7 and fig. 4). The Examiner
concludes that in view of Pang, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art “to modify the Tsuji system to have a coil around a
Appeal 2011-011901
Application 11/017,637

3
dielectric tube to destroy wastes, with the attendant advantage obvious and
inherent.” Id.
Appellants argue that “the operation of Tsuji’s apparatus depends on
the copolymerization reaction between chlorofluorocarbon and hydrocarbon
gases, which requires that the chlorofluorocarbon gas is not dissociated into
smaller molecules” and thus, “if Pang is combined with Tsuji, Tsuji’s
copolymerization reaction and collection on the fixation member 14 would
be destroyed.” App. Br. 10.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument. As stated by Appellants,
“Tsuji relates to a system that copolymerizes a gaseous chlorofluorocarbon
with a hydrocarbon,” and “Tsuji’s system operates by generating solid
copolymers of halogenated hydrocarbon and a gaseous hydrocarbon.” App.
Br. 9 (citing Tsuji, Abstr. and col. 3, ll. 19-32). Appellants also note “Tsuji
states that when chlorofluorocarbon gas is excited into plasma, no
polymerization takes place, and adds hydrocarbon gas to the
chlorofluorocarbon gas to generate high molecular weight copolymers of the
hydrocarbon and the chlorofluorocarbon,” such that “[t]he copolymers are
deposited and accumulated on the fixation member 14.” Id. (citing Tsuji,
col. 2, ll. 8-14, and col. 5, ll. 18-20). Thus, Appellants conclude, and we
agree, that “the operation of Tsuji’s apparatus depends on the
copolymerization reaction between chlorofluorocarbon and hydrocarbon
gases, which requires that the chlorofluorocarbon gas is not dissociated into
smaller molecules.” Id.
Pang, on the other hand, “discloses an apparatus that ‘substantially
prevents particulate matter and other residual material from building up in an
exhaust line,” and “the apparatus of Pang merely prevents build-up of
Appeal 2011-011901
Application 11/017,637

4
silicon-based compounds in a vacuum exhaust line.” App. Br. 10 (citing
Pang, col. 2, ll. 39-52, and col. 5, ll. 55-62). A person of ordinary skill in the
art would not apply the teachings of Pang to the apparatus of Tsuji, because
the proposed modification would destroy Tsuji or render it unsatisfactory for
its intended purpose. See Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich. Inc., 192 F.3d
1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Where the proposed modification would render
the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended
purpose, the proposed modification would not have been obvious).
In the case before us, Tsuji’s apparatus relies on copolymerization of
gaseous chlorofluorocarbon with a hydrocarbon to generate high molecular
weight copolymers of the hydrocarbon and the chlorofluorocarbon, which
copolymers are then deposited and accumulated on the fixation member 14.
Tsuji, Abstr., col. 2, ll. 8-14, col. 3, ll. 19-32, and col. 5, ll. 18-20. In
contrast, Pang excites exhaust material deposited in a tube into a plasma
state by the application of a voltage from an RF power supply to a coil
around the tube, and in the plasma state, constituents from the exhaust
material react to form gaseous products that may be pumped out. Pang,
Abstr., and col. 7, ll. 54-62. In other words, while Tsuji’s device promotes
build-up of particulate material, Pang’s apparatus prevents build-up of
particulate matter and other residual material. Pang, col. 2, ll. 39-52 and
col.5, ll. 12-20, and 49-62. Thus, Pang’s teachings could not be used to
modify Tsuji’s apparatus in a manner that would not destroy Tsuji or would
not render Tsuji unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1, and claims 2-8 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Tsuji and Pang.
Appeal 2011-011901
Application 11/017,637

5
Claims 15-28
With respect to independent claims 15 and 24, Appellants set forth the
same argument as relied upon for independent claim 1 supra, namely, “if
Pang is combined with Tsuji, Tsuji’s copolymerization reaction and
collection on the fixation member 14 would be destroyed.” App. Br. 17 and
24. For the same reason as discussed supra, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 15 and 24, and claims 16-23 and
25-28 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Tsuji and Pang.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-8 and 15-28.

REVERSED

Klh