Ivan L. Berry et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 1, 2019

14592820 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2019)

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.
14/592,820 01/08/2015 Ivan L. Berry III LAMRP159/3544-1US 3602
83422 7590 08/01/2019
Weaver Austin Villeneuve & Sampson - LAMR/NOVL
P.O. BOX 70250
OAKLAND, CA 94612-0250
EXAMINER
SMYTH, ANDREW P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2881
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2019 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):
USPTO@wavsip.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte IVAN L. BERRY, III, and THORSTEN LILL1

____________

Appeal 2018-006124
Application 14/592,820
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, WHITNEY N. WILSON, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Lam Research Corporation.
Appeal 2018-006124
Application 14/592,820

2

Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 7, 17–19 and 21–24. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants’ subject matter on appeal and is set forth
below (with text in bold for emphasis):
1. An ion beam etching apparatus for etching material on semiconductor
substrates, the apparatus comprising:
a reaction chamber;
a substrate support in the reaction chamber;
an ion source comprising:
a plasma region for generating and/or maintaining a plasma, and
an ion extractor positioned proximate the plasma region, the ion extractor
comprising:
a first electrode, a second electrode, and a third electrode, each of the first,
second, and third electrodes comprising a plurality of apertures therein, wherein
the third electrode is an off-center aperture electrode, the apertures in the third
electrode being offset from apertures in the first and second electrodes, and
a power supply configured to supply a bias potential to one or more of the
first electrode, second electrode, and third electrode,
wherein the ion extractor is configured to generate a plurality of ion
beams emanating from the plurality of apertures in the first, second, and third
electrodes;
and
a controller having instructions to:
(a) generate the ion beams and apply a bias to the off-center aperture
electrode to thereby deflect a direction of the ion beam trajectories to a
non-normal angle with respect to a lowermost electrode of the ion
extractor, the lowermost electrode being one of the first electrode, second
electrode, and third electrode, and
(b) vary the bias applied to the off-center aperture electrode to thereby
alter the direction of the ion beam trajectories such that the ion beams
move with respect to the orientation of the substrate during etching,
Appeal 2018-006124
Application 14/592,820

3
wherein the direction of each ion beam trajectory is along the
centerline of the ion beam.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Le Jeune US 4,873,445 Oct. 10, 1989
Brailove et al. US 2003/0168588 A1 Sept. 11, 2003
Hwang et al. US 20070181820 A1 Aug. 9, 2007
Walther US 2008/0132046 A1 June 5, 2008
Berry, III et al. US 2016/0064232 A1 Mar. 3, 2016

THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 17–19, and 22–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hwang in view of Le Jeune.
2. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Hwang in view of Le Jeune, and further in view of Brailove.
3. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Hwang in view of Le Jeune and further in view of Walther.

ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified
by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex
parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval
in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s
practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s
rejections.”). After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal (including the
Examiner’s Answer, the Appeal Brief, and the Reply Brief), we are persuaded that
Appeal 2018-006124
Application 14/592,820

4
Appellants identify reversible error. Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections and
add the following primarily for emphasis.
Claim 1 is directed to an ion beam etching apparatus where a controller has
instructions to generate the ion beams and apply a bias to an off-center aperture
electrode that can deflect the ion beam trajectories in directions having a non-normal
angle with respect to a lowermost electrode of the ion extractor, and wherein the
direction of each ion beam trajectory is along the centerline of the ion beam.
Thus, claim 1 recites that the individual ion beam trajectories are deflected such that
their individual centerlines are non-normal with respect to the lowermost electrode
of the ion extractor. These recited features are best illustrated by Appellants’
Figures 7A and B (below):

Figure 7A Figure 7B

Appellants’ Figure 7A shows no bias applied to 703 (off-center aperture
electrode) and Figure 7B shows bias applied to 703. Because of the applied bias,
Figure 7B shows deflection of the ion beam trajectories in directions2 having a non-

2 Appellants explain that with regard to the claim term “direction”, each ion beam
has an ion beam trajectory, and each ion beam trajectory has a direction. The
direction of each ion beam trajectory is along the centerline of the ion beam, as
recited in claim 1. In other words, each of the individual ion beams has a direction
that is along the centerline of that particular ion beam. Appeal Br. 11–12.

Appeal 2018-006124
Application 14/592,820

5
normal angle with respect to the lowermost electrode (704). The respective
individual ion beam trajectories shown in Figure 7B are deflected such that their
individual centerlines are non-normal with respect to the lowermost electrode (704).
Hwang’s Figure 2A is reproduced below.

The Examiner relies upon Figure 2A of Hwang (copied above), stating that
this figure shows ion beams that are deflected at a non-normal angle relative to
electrode 125. Ans. 8–9. Appellants disagree with this position for the reasons
stated in both the Appeal Brief (pp. 11–16) and Reply Brief (pp. 2–4).
Claim interpretation is dispositive in this case. Appellants argue that the
direction of each ion beam trajectory is explicitly recited in claim 1 as being along
the centerline of the ion beams. Appeal Br. 13. Appellants argue that
the centerlines of the ion beams in Figure 2A of Hwang (shown above) are in fact
normal to the surface of electrode 125. Id. Appellants point out that while the ion
beams shown in Figure 2A of Huang have some divergence such that the ion beams
are delivered over a particular irradiation angle, the actual direction of the ion
beam trajectories is still normal to the surface of electrode 125 (contrary to the
Appeal 2018-006124
Application 14/592,820

6
requirements of claim 1). Appeal Br. 13. We agree. In response to this line of
argument, the Examiner states that the claims have been given their broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification. Ans. 8. However, the
Examiner’s interpretation ignores the plain meaning of the claim language. We note
that the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain
meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed.
Cir. 1989). As Appellants correctly point out (Appeal Br. 13), claim terms must be
given weight. Because an element of the claim has not been properly interpreted in
making the rejection, said element has not been properly considered, and we thus
reverse each rejection for this reason. In a §103(a) obviousness rejection, the Patent
Office has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case. To establish prima
facie obviousness of a claimed invention, all the claim limitations must be taught or
suggested by the prior art. “When determining whether a claim is obvious, an
examiner must make a searching comparison of the claimed invention, including all
its limitations, with the teaching of the prior art.” In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1572
(Fed. Cir. 1995). We need not reach the merits of the remainder of the applied
references discussed in the rejections in making our determinations herein.

DECISION
Each rejection is reversed.

ORDER
REVERSED