Ex Parte Carey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2017

12855652 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 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.
12/855,652 08/12/2010 Paul Carey APPM/005635.C1 /FEP/RTP/PJ 1360
44257 7590 04/04/2017
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - Applied Materials
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
EXAMINER
MOVVA, AMAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2898
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2017 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):
Pair_Eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL CAREY, AARON MUIR HUNTER, DEAN JENNINGS,
ABHILASH J. MAYUR, STEPHEN MOFFATT, WILLIAM SCHAFFER,
TIMOTHY N. THOMAS, and MARK YAM
Appeal 2014-005329
Application 12/855,6521
Technology Center 2800
Before RICHARD E. SCHAFER, PETER F. KRATZ, and HUBERT C. LORIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHAFER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Applied Materials, Inc.
Br. 4.
Appeal 2014-005329
Application 12/855,652
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Applied Materials, Inc. (Applicant) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
of the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1—7 and 9—18. Claims 9—15
were cancelled subsequent to the final rejection. Thus, the rejection of claims 1—7
and 16—18 is before us. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
In the Answer, the Examiner maintains the grounds of rejection listed below:
1. The subject matter of claims 16—18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as
anticipated by Auston2;
2. The subject matter of claims 1—7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Auston and
White.3
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to a method for processing substrates of the type used
in the manufacture of integrated circuits. Independent claim 16 requires irradiating
the substrate with energy from two energy sources. At least one of the sources
must deliver polarized laser energy. Regardless of source, the energy must be
delivered such that neither source delivers energy sufficient to “cause a portion of
the substrate to melt.” Claim 1 additionally requires positioning the substrate on a
heated substrate to increase the substrate temperature and irradiating the heated
substrate with energy from two sources. The energy delivered from both sources
must be polarized laser annealing energy. As in claim 16, the energy must be
2U.S. Patent 4,234,356 issued Nov. 18, 1980.
3 U.S. Published Application 2007/0080141 A1 published April 12, 2007.
2
Appeal 2014-005329
Application 12/855,652
delivered such that neither source provides energy sufficient to “cause a portion of
the substrate to melt.”
Claims 1 and 16, reproduced from the Claims Appendix, illustrate the
invention with the contested subject language italicized:
Claim 1
A method of thermally processing a substrate,
comprising:
positioning the substrate on a substrate support comprising a
heating element and increasing the temperature of the substrate;
delivering a first energy from a first energy source to the
substrate; and
delivering a second energy from a second energy source to the
substrate,
wherein the first energy or the second energy is annealing energy
and the annealing energy is polarized laser energy, and
wherein the first energy and the second energy individually do
not cause a portion of the substrate to melt.
Claim 16
A method of thermally processing a substrate, comprising:
delivering a first energy from a first energy source to the
substrate; and
delivering a second energy from a second energy source to the
substrate,
wherein at least one of the first energy and the second energy are
polarized laser energy, and
wherein the first energy and the second energy individually could
not cause a portion of the substrate to melt.
Br. 9—10 (emphasis added).
3
Appeal 2014-005329
Application 12/855,652
ANALYSIS
A.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred because Auston does not teach the
limitation that neither the first and second energy individually “not cause a portion
of the substrate to melt.” Br. 6. In Appellants’ view, Auston teaches application of
first energy which melts the substrate followed by delivery of the second energy to
the molten substrate. Br. 6. Because the first pulse is said to melt a portion of the
substrate, Auston does not meet the claim limitations. Br. 6.
The Examiner responds that Auston teaches the limitation. Specifically,
referring to Auston’s Fig. 8, the Examiner finds that Auston teaches using a first
energy pulse (53) that illuminates a substrate made of a material transparent to that
pulse which does not melt any portion of the substrate. The second pulse (52)
illuminates and melts a region of (54) of the substrate (50). In the Examiner’s
view, the unirradiated remainder of the substrate (50) constitutes “a portion” of the
substrate that “could not” or “does not” melt. Ans. 2—3.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue that the energy pulse (52) melts a
region (54) of the substrate (50) and Auston, therefore, does not teach the
limitation requiring “the first energy and the second energy individually do
not cause a portion of a substrate to melt.” Reply Br. 2. Appellants explains
this point as follows:
While the Examiner attempts to selectively define “a portion” as
an untreated portion of the substrate, the fact that the treated portion
melts is not changed. Applicants' claims do not draw a distinction
between treated portions and untreated portions of a substrate, but
rather, simply require that “the first energy and the second energy
individually do not cause a portion of the substrate to melt.” Because
a portion of the substrate of Auston et al. is melted by the energy pulse
52, Auston et al. cannot teach or suggest the limitation at issue. Once a
portion of the substrate is melted, Auston et al. ceases to be able to meet
4
Appeal 2014-005329
Application 12/855,652
the claim language of “not causing a portion of the substrate to melt,”
because indeed, a portion is melted.
The Examiner's erroneous construction of “a portion” does not
change the fact that Auston et al. discloses an energy pulse individually
capable of melting a substrate, and therefore, Auston et al. cannot teach
or suggest the limitation of wherein the first energy and the second
energy individually do not cause a portion of the substrate to melt.
Reply Br. 2—3.
By way of summary, the Examiner and Appellant’s each urge their own
view of how the claims should be interpreted. In the Examiner’s view “a portion”
should be read to mean a part or region of the substrate. Because Auston teaches
the pulse 52, while melting the region 54, the remainder of the substrate is “a
portion” of the substrate that is not melted. In Appellants’ view, the pulse 52 melts
the region 54 and that region is “a portion” of the substrate that is melted and does
not meet the claim language. In other words, according to Appellants, not melting
“a portion” of the substrate should be read as not melting “any portion” of the
substrate.
B.
In our view, a plain reading of the language in the claims supports both
viewpoints. However, we do not analyze claims in vacuum. We give the claim
terms their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the disclosure.
Neither Appellants’ Brief or Reply Brief nor the Examiner’s Answer direct us to
portions of the disclosure that supports their respective constructions of “a
portion.” We therefore turn to the Appellants’ disclosure.
Our review of that disclosure shows that Appellants have not expressly
defined what they meant by “a portion.4” Nor have they tried to show that the
4 We note, in this regard, that Appellants’ claims do not appear to comply with
37 CFR § 1.75(d)(1) and the Examiner did not require compliance.
5
Appeal 2014-005329
Application 12/855,652
phrase as a particular meaning in the involved art. We therefore give the phrase its
regular ordinary meaning as a part of whole or a piece of something.
Our review of Appellants’ disclosure shows that the specification includes
embodiments that appear to be consistent with the Examiner’s interpretation of “a
portion.” For example, Figure 1 shows irradiating a substrate with an energy
source 20 to preferentially melt the region (12) while not causing the remaining
portion of the substrate to melt. Figure 1, Specification, 135. We fail to
appreciate why that remaining unmelted portion is also not “a portion” of the
substrate—i.e., a part of the substrate—as ”a portion” is used in the claims. Thus,
the examiner’s construction appears to be consistent with Appellant’s disclosure
and we are persuaded that, on the record before us, the Examiner’s construction is
appropriate.
As Appellants assert the same basis for reversal for both rejections, and has
not asserted any other grounds for reversal, we therefore affirm the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1—7 and 9—18.
DECISION
Upon consideration of the appeal, and for the reasons given herein the
decisions of the Examiner rejecting claims 1—7 and 9—18 because the subject
matter of those claims was unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a)
over the prior art are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6