Ex Parte Yoo et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 4, 2012

11466922 (B.P.A.I. May. 4, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/466,922 08/24/2006 Ming-Feng Yoo 2005.0708/1085.409 2786
54657 7590 05/04/2012
DUANE MORRIS LLP (TSMC)
IP DEPARTMENT
30 SOUTH 17TH STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-4196
EXAMINER
DHINGRA, RAKESH KUMAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/04/2012 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 MING-FENG YOO,
JEAN WANG, and JYH-CHERNG SHEU
____________

Appeal 2010-011928
Application 11/466,922
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision1
finally rejecting claims 1-14, 21-24, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
unpatentable over Shamouilian (US 6,689,252 B1, issued Feb. 10, 2004) in view of
Bhatnagar (US 6,391,146 B1, issued May 21, 2002) and Kaushal (US
2002/0182131 A1, published Dec. 5, 2002), and claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)

1 Final Office Action mailed Sep. 15, 2009 (“Final”).
Appeal 2010-011928
Application 11/466,922

2
as unpatentable over the same references, further in view of Yoshizako (US
5,399,977, issued Mar. 21, 1995).2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellants’ arguments in support of patentability as to all appealed claims
are directed to limitations common to the independent claims, claims 1, 8, and 21.
(See Br. 5-10.) Claim 21 is representative of the invention and is reproduced
below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
21. A system for maintaining reaction chamber exhaust lines, said system
comprising:

a plasma cleaning unit comprising an exhaust gas inlet for receiving exhaust
gas from a semiconductor processing chamber, a cleaning gas inlet, a plasma
source for exciting the mixture of received exhaust gas and cleaning gas to
decompose the gas mixture into at least two constituent components, and a gas
outlet; and

a scrubber in fluid connection with the gas outlet of the plasma cleaning
unit, the scrubber having first and second scrubbing stages, the first scrubbing
stage comprising a high temperature heater and the second scrubbing stage
comprising a wet scrubber.

Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding (see Ans.3 4-5) that
Shamouilian in view of Bhatnagar discloses the invention as recited in independent
claims 1, 8, and 21, with the exception of a two stage scrubber wherein the first
stage comprises a heating element. (See generally, Br. 6-10.) Appellants do not
dispute the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 5-6) that Kaushal discloses a two stage
scrubber, i.e., a prescrubber 230 and a post scrubber 270. (See generally, Br. 6-
10.) Appellants do not disagree with the Examiner’s proposed motivation to

2 Appeal Brief filed Mar. 5, 2010 (“Br.”)
3 Examiner’s Answer mailed May 25, 2010.
Appeal 2010-011928
Application 11/466,922

3
modify the apparatus/system of Shamouilian in view of Bhatnagar to include first
and second stage scrubbers as taught by Kaushal4. (See generally, Br. 6-10.)
Appellants concede Kaushal discloses a catalytic reactor 250 which can be
combined with prescrubber 230 as a compact unit, and that Kaushal’s catalytic
reactor 250 may include a heater. (Br. 8-9.) However, Appellants argue the
applied prior art fails to disclose or suggest the use of a “heater element” (claim 1)
or “high temperature heater” (claims 8 and 21) in the first scrubbing stage.
According to Appellants, “Kaushal only describes the benefits of providing a
heater in combination with the catalytic reactor, and not the prescrubber.” (Br. 9.)
Appellants contend the only teaching of using a heating element with a prescrubber
is found in Appellants’ Specification. (Id.) Thus, the sole issue raised for our
consideration is: did the Examiner rely on improper hindsight reasoning in
determining that it would have been obvious to have modified the
apparatus/system of Shamouilian, as modified by Bhatnagar, to include a heating
element in the first stage scrubber?
In responding to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner reiterates that
Kaushal teaches “the effluent gas may be heated by the heater 240 before, during
or after passing over the catalyst (para.0040).” (Ans. 13 (citing Kaushal [0040]);
see also, Ans. 5-6; Final 5-6.) Based on this finding, the Examiner maintains, “[i]t
would [have been] obvious to provide an integral prescrubber and catalytic reactor
with the heater rearranged (such that prescrubber or first scrubbing stage comprises
[a] heater) . . . to obtain a predictable result of heating of the effluent gases.” (Ans.

4 (Ans. 6 (“It would be obvious to replace the catalytic reactor and the scrubber in
the apparatus of Shamouilian et al in view of Bhatnagar et al with an integral
prescrubber and catalytic reactor . . . (first scrubbing stage . . .), and a post
scrubber (second scrubbing stage), as per teaching of Kaushal et al to obtain
increased abatement of hazardous gases in the effluent.”).)
Appeal 2010-011928
Application 11/466,922

4
13.) Appellants have not responded to this argument (see generally, Br. 6-10),
e.g., by identifying error in the Examiner’s fact finding or explaining why such
modification would not have been a predictable variation within the skill of the
ordinary artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“If
a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars
its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one
device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). Absent such response by
Appellants, we are not convinced the Examiner relied on improper hindsight
reasoning in determining that it would have been obvious to have modified the
apparatus/system of Shamouilian, as modified by Bhatnagar, to include a heating
element in the first stage scrubber.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-14 and 21-26.
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

cam