Anthony J. Ricci et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 25, 2019

14340083 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 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. 14/340,083 07/24/2014 Anthony J. Ricci 1341-5US 3807 91286 7590 09/25/2019 Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (Lam) P.O. Box 828 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303 EXAMINER MACARTHUR, SYLVIA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1716 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/25/2019 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): eofficeaction@appcoll.com sstevens@hdp.com troymailroom@hdp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ANTHONY J. RICCI, KEITH COMENDANT, and JAMES TAPPAN Appeal 2019-001488 Application 14/340,083 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 to 4 and 7 to 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42, which is listed as Lam Research Corporation. Application Data Sheet 4. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Lam Research Corporation. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2019-001488 Application 14/340,083 2 Appellant’s invention is directed to substrates supports for achieving uniform temperature distribution on a substrate during plasma processing (Spec. ¶ 2; Claim 1). Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A substrate support for control of a temperature of a semiconductor substrate supported thereon during plasma processing of the semiconductor substrate comprising: a temperature-controlled base having a top surface; a metal plate; a film heater, the film heater being a thin and flexible polyimide heater film with a plurality of independently controlled resistive heating elements thermally coupled to an underside of the metal plate, the film heater being electrically insulated from the metal plate, and the metal plate having a thickness adequate to transfer a spatial pattern of the film heater to the semiconductor substrate; a first layer of adhesive bonding the metal plate and the film heater to the top surface of the temperature-controlled base; and a layer of dielectric material bonded to a top surface of the metal plate with a second layer of adhesive, the layer of dielectric material forming an electrostatic clamping mechanism for supporting the semiconductor substrate. Appellant appeals the following rejections: 1. Claims 1–4, 7–13, 18, and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kholodenko (US 6,310,755 B1, issued Oct. 30, 2001) in view of Higashiura (US 2005/0236111 A1, published Oct. 27, 2005), Yoo (US 6,207,932 B1, issued Mar. 27, 2001), Ota (US 5,371,341, issued Dec. 6, 1994), and Schiller (US 3,411,122, issued Nov. 12, 1968). 2. Claims 14–17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as Appeal 2019-001488 Application 14/340,083 3 unpatentable over Kholodenko in view of Higashiura, Yoo, Ota, Schiller, and DeLucia (US 4,455,462, issued June 19, 1984). Appellant argues the claims as a group (App. Br. 6–21). Appellant relies on arguments made regarding rejection (1) in disputing rejection (2) (App. Br. 21). We focus on claim 1, which is the only independent claim on appeal. FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding the rejection of claim 1 over Kholodenko in view of Higashiura, Yoo, Ota, and Schiller are located on pages 3 to 5 of the Final Action. Appellant argues that the combined teachings of Kholodenko and Higashiura would not have suggested using Higashiura’s metal plate for Kholodenko’s composite base 175 (App. Br. 13). We agree. Kholodenko teaches an electrostatic chuck for use in plasma processes (col. 1, ll. 5–6). Kholodenko discloses that plasma processing involves high temperatures and erosive environments (col. 1, ll. 20–22). Kholodenko teaches that the high temperature requirement is met by using ceramic materials for the electrostatic chuck, but that it is difficult to attach the ceramic chuck to metal due to the difference in thermal expansion coefficients of the ceramic and metal that may cause thermal and mechanical stress resulting in ceramic material fracture or chipping (col. 1, ll. 27–34). Kholodenko teaches using composite material for the base made of a porous ceramic or carbon fiber (col. 5, ll. 30–47; col. 6, ll. 39–42). The ceramic material may be infiltrated with molten metal (col. 5, ll. 48–49). In other Appeal 2019-001488 Application 14/340,083 4 words, Kholodenko avoids using a plate made only of metal (i.e., a metal plate) as the base 175 due to the coefficient of thermal expansion problems. Based upon these teachings in Kholodenko, the Examiner’s finding that modifying Kholodenko’s base 175 with Higashiura’s metal plate 16 to enhance the temperature of the support further ensuring that the support is able to assist in the maintenance and control of the support and consequentially the wafer’s temperature would have been contrary to the teaching of Kholodenko that leads away from the use of solely metal as the base layer (Final Act. 4). Even if using metal for the base would have provided a uniform wafer distribution, Kholodenko teaches that thermal expansion coefficient problems occur between the metal base and ceramic chuck (col. 1, ll. 27–34). The Examiner responds that metals have an inherent thermal expansion coefficient and the metal with an acceptable thermal expansion coefficient may have been selected (Ans. 13). This finding does not address Kholodenko’s teaching to avoid metal and use a composite material for the base to permit tailoring the thermal expansion coefficient as argued by Appellants (Reply Br. 14). It appears that the Examiner’s combination would have frustrated the purpose of Kholodenko. On this record, we reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejections. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 7–13, 18, and 19 § 103 Kholodenko in view of Higashiura, 1–4, 7–13, 18, and 19 Appeal 2019-001488 Application 14/340,083 5 Claims Rejected Basis Affirmed Reversed Yoo, Ota, and Schiller 14–17 and 20 § 103 Kholodenko in view of Higashiura, Yoo, Ota, Schiller, and DeLucia 14–17 and 20 Overall Outcome 1–4 and 7–20 REVERSED