Ex Parte Whitlock

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 8, 2009

10643597 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 8, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte WALTER H. WHITLOCK
____________

Appeal 2009-002740
Application 10/643,597
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided:1 June 08, 2009
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, PETER F. KRATZ, and LINDA M.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6.

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the Decided Date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-002740
Application 10/643,597

Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a method and apparatus
for cleaning a semiconductor wafer surface using, inter alia, a dense gas
component, a liquid component, and a bellows accumulator.
Claims 1, 11, and 13 are illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A process for cleaning a surface of a semiconductor wafer,
which comprises:

providing a wafer;

conveying a component selected from the group consisting of: a
dense gas component, a liquid component and a mixture thereof to a
bellows accumulator having a bellows therein;

applying an elevated pressure to said bellows sufficient to
discharge said component from said bellows onto said surface of said
wafer; and

contacting said component with said surface of said wafer to
clean said wafer.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Carney 6,076,557 Jun. 20, 2000
Barton 6,085,762 Jul. 11, 2000
De Young 2002/0112747 A1 Aug. 22, 2002
Nishio 6,612,818 B2 Sep. 02, 2003

The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
I. Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over DeYoung, Nishio, and Carney; and
2
Appeal 2009-002740
Application 10/643,597

II. Claims 1-2, 5, and 8-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Barton in view of Nishio and Carney.2
We affirm the stated rejections as set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
Our reasoning follows.
Rejection over DeYoung, Nishio, and Carney
Appellant argues: claims 1-5 and 13 as a first claim grouping; claims
6 and 7 as a second claim grouping; and claims 8-12 and 14-20 as a third
claim grouping (App. Br. 22). We select claims 1, 6, and 8, respectively, as
the representative claims for these separately argued claim groups.
Concerning representative claim 1, Appellant argues that employing
(combining) the bellows type pump of Nishio with DeYoung’s cleaning
method and system would not have been suggested [to one of ordinary skill
in the art] based on the teachings of Nishio, DeYoung and Carney because
Nishio is directed to low (elevated) pressure situations (App. Br. 21-22).
Appellant asserts that using the bellows device of Nishio in combination
with DeYoung would have rendered the high pressure DeYoung process and
apparatus inoperable, and the addition of Carney as proposed by the
Examiner does not alter this asserted outcome (id.).
Concerning representative claim 6, Appellant further argues that the
Examiner’s evidence falls short of establishing that the claimed cleaning
component mixture velocity would have been “well known” or a “matter of

2 Appellant refers to two other obviousness rejections (DeYoung in view of
Nishio and Barton in view of Nishio) maintained by the Examiner in the
Final Office action. See page 14 of the Amended Appeal Brief filed
September 07, 2007 (App. Br. 14). The Examiner does not present these
rejections in the Examiner’s Answer dated December 07, 2007.
Accordingly, we consider these rejections as having been withdrawn by the
Examiner.
3
Appeal 2009-002740
Application 10/643,597

common knowledge” (App. Br. 22). With regard to claims 8-12, and 14-20,
Appellant additionally contends that the applied references do not
contemplate the use of two accumulators (bellows accumulators) as
required.3
PRINCIPAL ISSUE
Has Appellant established reversible error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection over DeYoung, Nishio, and Carney by the assertion
that combining Nishio and Carney together with DeYoung would not have
suggested the use of one or more bellows accumulators in the
method/system of DeYoung?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
On appeal to this Board, Appellant must show that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims. Cf. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir.
2006); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
During examination of a patent application, pending claims are given
their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In
re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969); In re Am. Acad. of Sci.
Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

3 Appellant generically presents arguments for several possible sub-
groupings of claims using “for example” designations that do not delineate
the precise claims intended to be included, and premises the argument on the
lack of a suggestion of using more than one accumulator based on the
applied combined references teachings, which argument is, in effect, the
same argument made for the separate patentability of claim 8 (App. Br. 22-
23). Thus, we do not consider this unfocused commentary as representing a
separate argument for the patentability of any other properly identified sub-
grouping of claims.
4
Appeal 2009-002740
Application 10/643,597

The Supreme Court has instructed that although the teaching,
suggestion, and motivation test “captured a helpful insight,” an obviousness
analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject
matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences
and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
The Federal Circuit recently emphasized that “[a]n obviousness
determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the
consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those
skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been
obvious where others would not.” Leapfrog Enter., Inc. v. Fisher-Price,
Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR, 550 U.S. 398 at 416. The question to be asked is “whether the
improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according
to their established functions.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
A rejection premised upon a proper combination of references cannot
be overcome by attacking the references individually. In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981). “[A] finding that the prior art as a whole suggests
the desirability of a particular combination need not be supported by a
finding that the prior art suggests that the combination claimed by the patent
applicant is the preferred, or most desirable, combination.” In re Fulton,
391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
It is axiomatic that admitted prior art (APA) in an applicants'
Specification may be used in determining the patentability of a claimed
5
Appeal 2009-002740
Application 10/643,597

invention and that consideration of the prior art cited by the Examiner may
include consideration of the admitted prior art found in an applicant's
Specification. In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 570-571 (CCPA 1975); In re
Davis, 305 F.2d 501, 503 (CCPA 1962); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039-
1040 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellant acknowledges that cleaning processes for wafers and
electronic chips commonly employ a mixture of organic solvents and dense
gases (e.g.; carbon dioxide) at high pressures (Spec. 1). Appellant
acknowledges that “[c]arbon dioxide is typically supplied commercially as a
compressed gas (liquefied) or as a cryogenic liquid” (Spec 6).
Appellant acknowledges the commercial availability of bellows
accumulators, such as the HYDROPADTM brand by Flexicraft Inc. (Spec. 7-
8).
DeYoung teaches or suggests a method and system for cleaning
micro-electronic devices, such as semiconductor substrates (silicon dioxide
wafers) using densified (liquefied or supercritical fluid) carbon dioxide in an
admixture with an organic co-solvent under high pressure (¶¶ 0014, 0040,
0041, 0043-0045, and 0054; Figs. 2 and 4). DeYoung discloses the use of
storage tanks or pressure vessels for holding the carbon dioxide and organic
co-solvent cleaning agent under pressure for supply to the cleaning chamber
under pressure and so as to direct the cleaning agent with “substantial fluid
action onto the surfaces of the wafer” (¶ 0063; Fig. 4).
Appellant incorporates DeYoung (US 2002/0112747 A1) by
reference into the subject Specification for disclosing a known wafer
6
Appeal 2009-002740
Application 10/643,597

cleaning process of the type Appellant is concerned with (para. bridging
Spec. 8-9). Furthermore, Appellant does not dispute that DeYoung’s
process corresponds to the representative claim 1 process but for the use of a
bellows accumulator for conveying a carbon dioxide or liquid cleaning
component onto a wafer surface to be cleaned (see generally App. Br.).
Nishio teaches or suggests a bellows type pump/accumulator that is
disclosed as being useful for the supply of liquid chemicals for washing
surfaces of semiconductor devices with a smooth (reduced pulsation)
discharge (col. 1, l. 9 - col. 2, l. 19).
Carney teaches or suggests that accumulators including bellows can
be used in high pressure fluid supply lines for dampening pressure
fluctuations (col. 2, ll. 15-62 and col. 4, ll. 23-60).
Appellant discloses that a useful accumulator for the subject claimed
system and process can take many forms, including that of a storage tank,
process vessel or bellows type, such as the known HYDROPADTM brand by
Flexicraft Inc. (Spec., para. bridging 7-8).

ANALYSIS
Representative claim 1 is drawn to a process requiring the provision
of a wafer, conveying a cleaning component comprising a liquid or dense
gas component and discharging that component with any applied elevated
pressure onto a surface of the wafer so as to clean the wafer. Appellant does
not dispute that DeYoung teaches or suggests a wafer cleaning process
corresponding to the above-noted aspects of the claim 1 process.
Representative claim 1 further requires use of a bellows accumulator.
The Examiner and Appellant are in agreement that DeYoung does not
7
Appeal 2009-002740
Application 10/643,597

explicitly describe using such a bellows accumulator in the cleaning
component conveyance path and applying elevated pressure via the bellows
to discharge the cleaning component onto the wafer surface, as required by
appealed representative claim 1.
However, both Nishio and Carney disclose bellows accumulators to
be known devices used in conveying fluids under pressure, as noted above
and in the Examiner’s Answer. According to Carney, these bellows type
accumulators can be used to dampen pressure fluctuations, as explained
above. Also, Nishio teaches or suggests the use of bellows type pumps for
supplying liquid chemicals to wash semiconductor devices. Of course, as
also noted above, Appellant acknowledges the commercial availability of a
bellows accumulator useful for the here-disclosed cleaning process.
Against this backdrop, Appellant’s unadorned arguments, alleging a
lack of suggestion for one of ordinary skill in the art to use these familiar
and conventional bellows–type elevated or high pressure fluid supply
devices for supplying the cleaning component in the process of DeYoung,
are without merit. After all, Appellant has not demonstrated that the
application of known bellows accumulators to the process of DeYoung is
beyond the realm of predictability to one of ordinary skill in this art of
cleaning semi-conductor wafers. An ordinarily skilled artisan is not without
some measure of ordinary creativity and common sense so as to recognize
the obviousness of employing such a conventional device for its intended
purpose. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
As for Appellant’s unproven assertion that application of a bellows
accumulator to the process of DeYoung would render the DeYoung process
inoperative, suffice it to say that Appellant has not proffered persuasive
8
Appeal 2009-002740
Application 10/643,597

evidentiary support that substantiates this argument. In this regard,
Appellant asserts Nishio’s bellows can not be employed at the high pressure
employed by DeYoung but only at lesser elevated pressures (App. Br. 25-
26). However, this argument represents unsubstantiated argument or
conjecture, at least on this appeal record, and does not take into account the
knowledge and level of skill in the art as further evidenced by Carney and
Appellant’s acknowledgement in the Specification concerning the
availability of a high pressure bellows accumulator device. This additional
evidence suggests that bellows accumulators are capable of operating at high
pressures on the order of pressures disclosed by DeYoung and are readily
available and within the ordinary skill of the art to employ in the process of
DeYoung.
Concerning representative claim 6 and the argued minimum 10
cm/sec cleaning agent discharge flow rate, we note that DeYoung teaches or
suggests directing the cleaning agent with “substantial fluid action onto the
surfaces of the wafer” (¶ 0063), as was pointed out above. On this record,
we agree with the Examiner’s obviousness position because DeYoung’s
teachings would have reasonably led one of ordinary skill in the art to
determine the optimum or workable cleaning agent fluid action by routine
experimentation and arrive at workable cleaning agent discharge flow rates
for contacting and cleaning the wafer. Here, Appellant has not demonstrated
that providing any cleaning agent discharge flow rate greater than 10cm/sec
would have been outside the reach of an ordinarily skilled artisan who was
following the teachings of DeYoung to furnish “substantial fluid action onto
the surfaces of the wafer[s]” during the cleaning process.
9
Appeal 2009-002740
Application 10/643,597

Regarding representative claim 8 and the use of two bellows
accumulators as required thereby, DeYoung discloses the provision of more
than one liquid or fluid cleaning agent for supply to the wafer cleaning
chamber, as we noted above (DeYoung, ¶¶ 0044, 0045, 0054 and 0063;
Figs. 2 and 4). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in
the art to employ more than one bellows accumulator in De Young’s
method/system.

CONCLUSION
Appellant has not established reversible error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection over DeYoung, Nishio, and Carney by the assertion
that combining Nishio and Carney together with DeYoung would not have
suggested the use of one or more bellows accumulators in the
method/system of DeYoung.

Rejection over Barton, Nishio, and Carney
In this second obviousness rejection maintained by the Examiner in
the Answer, the Examiner relies on Barton instead of DeYoung (as relied
upon in the first stated rejection) for teaching or suggesting a wafer cleaning
process substantially corresponding to the claimed process but for the
employment of one or more bellows accumulators, as the argued claims
variously require (Ans. 7).
Again, the Examiner relies on Nishio and Carney for teaching the use
of bellows-type pumps/accumulators and the Examiner maintains that “[i]t
would have been obvious for one [ordinarily] skilled in the art to use the
10
Appeal 2009-002740
Application 10/643,597

accumulator taught by Nishio instead of the ballast tank taught by Barton.”
(Ans. para. bridging 7-8).
Appellant argues the rejected claims as a group in asserting that the
Examiner has presented no plausible or convincing line of reasoning for the
Examiner’s proposed combination (App. Br. 23-24). Also, Appellant argues
that the proposed combination of references would not have taught the use
of two accumulators, which additional argument pertains to claims 8-12 and
14-20. Thus, claims 1, 2, 5 and 13 are a first claim grouping and claims 8-
12, and 14-20 are a second claim grouping for which reasonably specific
arguments are separately presented. We select claims 1 and 8, respectively,
as the representative claims for these separately argued claim groups.

PRINCIPAL ISSUE
Has Appellant established reversible error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection over Barton in combination with Nishio, and Carney
based on the argument that there is no plausible or convincing line of
reasoning that supports the Examiner’s proposed modification of Barton to
include the use of one or more bellows accumulators for use in supplying
one or more cleaning components to a wafer surface for cleaning?

FINDINGS OF FACT
In addition to the factual finds set forth elsewhere in this Opinion, we
determine the following findings of fact by a preponderance of the evidence.
Barton discloses a method of cleaning wafers that includes the steps
of providing a wafer, conveying at least one cleaning component under
pressure to a vessel or tank (accumulator), and discharging the one or more
11
Appeal 2009-002740
Application 10/643,597

cleaning components onto a wafer surface for contacting the wafer surface
and cleaning the wafer (col. 2, l. 21-37, col. 2, l. 65 - col. 3, l. 63, col. 4, l. 9-
21, col. 6, l. 34-col. 7, l. 34; col. 12, ll. 37-40; Figs. 1 and 2). While the
illustrated Figure 1 embodiment of Barton employs three ballast tanks (36,
38, and 40) for supplying pressurized cleaning fluid to a wafer cleaning
chamber (54), Barton teaches or suggests that this embodiment is merely
exemplary (col. 7, l. 31-34, Fig. 1). For example, Barton teaches employing
a single ballast tank (21) in the Figure 2 embodiment (col. 11, l. 58-67, Fig.
2).
Appellant incorporates by reference Barton (U.S. Patent No.
6,085,762) in the subject Specification as an example of a circuit
manufacturing process including substrate/wafer cleaning steps with which
Appellant’s system and process is disclosed as being useful (Spec. para.
bridging 8-9).

ANALYSIS
For substantially similar reasons to those set forth above with respect
to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection over DeYoung, Nishio, and Carney,
we are likewise not persuaded by Appellant’s non-substantiated assertions
that the Examiner’s proposed modification of Barton to employ known
bellows accumulators in place of other ballast or holding tanks for
conveying and discharging the cleaning components of Barton to the wafer
cleaning vessel would be inimical to the process and system of Barton.
Both Nishio and Carney disclose bellows accumulators are known
devices used in conveying fluids under pressure, as noted above and in the
Examiner’s Answer. Nishio teaches or suggests the use of bellows type
12
Appeal 2009-002740
Application 10/643,597

pumps for supplying liquid chemicals to wash semiconductor devices. Of
course, as also noted above, Appellant acknowledges the commercial
availability of a bellows accumulator that is useful in the here-claimed
cleaning process.
Appellant’s arguments respecting a lack of suggestion for one of
ordinary skill in the art to use a familiar and conventional bellows–type high
pressure fluid supply device for supplying the cleaning component in the
process of Barton is unfounded. Appellant has not demonstrated that the
application of known bellows accumulators to the process of Barton is
beyond the reach of an ordinary skilled artisan familiar with cleaning semi-
conductor wafers. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Nor has Appellant fairly explained how the provision of one or more
bellows accumulator tanks in the cleaning fluid supply system of Barton for
discharging the cleaning fluid onto a wafer, as suggested by Nishio, would
operate to “defeat the purpose of the Barton system” as argued (App. Br.
24).
As for the arguments with respect to representative claim 8 and the
use of two accumulators, such arguments are not persuasive for substantially
the same reasons we set forth above with respect to the Examiner’s first
stated obviousness rejection.

CONCLUSION
Appellant has not established reversible error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection over Barton in combination with Nishio and Carney
based on the argument that there is no plausible or convincing line of
reasoning that supports the Examiner’s proposed modification of Barton to
13
Appeal 2009-002740
Application 10/643,597

include the use of one or more bellows accumulators for use in supplying
one or more cleaning components to a wafer surface for its cleaning.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over DeYoung, Nishio, and Carney; and to
reject claims 1-2, 5, and 8-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Barton in view of Nishio and Carney is affirmed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(v).

AFFIRMED

ssl

THE BOC GROUP, INC.
575 MOUNTAIN AVENUE
MURRAY HILL, NJ 07974-2082

14