Applied Materials, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 21, 2021

2020003904 (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2021)

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. 14/291,807 05/30/2014 XIAOXIONG YUAN 21818USA 6387 55649 7590 05/21/2021 Moser Taboada / Applied Materials, Inc. 1030 Broad Street Suite 203 Shrewsbury, NJ 07702 EXAMINER ANTOLIN, STANISLAV ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1716 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/21/2021 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): ataboada@mtiplaw.com docketing@mtiplaw.com llinardakis@mtiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte XIAOXIONG YUAN, KARTIK SHAH, DHRITIMAN SUBHA KASHYAP, UMESH M. KELKAR, DIEN-YEH WU, and MUHAMMAD M. RASHEED Appeal 2020-003904 Application 14/291,807 Technology Center 1700 Before N. WHITNEY WILSON, BRIAN D. RANGE, and SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–9, 12–16, and 21. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Applied Materials, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-003904 Application 14/291,807 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to substrate processing chamber systems. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below with key limitations italicized for emphasis: 1. (Previously Presented) A substrate processing chamber system, comprising: a chamber body and a chamber lid defining an interior volume; a substrate support disposed within the interior volume and having a support surface to support a substrate; a gas passageway disposed in the chamber lid opposite the substrate support to supply a gas mixture to the interior volume, the gas passageway including a first portion, a second portion, and a third portion, wherein the first portion has an inner sidewall disposed at a first, consistent angle of between 70 to 110 degrees with respect to the support surface of the substrate support until the first portion meets with the second portion, the second portion has an inner sidewall continuous with the inner sidewall of the first portion and disposed at a second angle with respect to the support surface, and the third portion has [an] inner sidewall continuous with the inner sidewall of the second portion and disposed at a third angle of between 2 to 12 degrees with respect to the support surface of the substrate support, wherein the second angle is less than the first angle and the third angle is less than the second angle, and wherein the second angle continuously radially diverges along the inner sidewall of the second portion between the first and third angles; a first gas inlet disposed in the first portion to supply a first gas to the first portion of the gas passageway; and a second gas inlet disposed in the second portion to supply a second gas to the second portion. REJECTIONS On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Appeal 2020-003904 Application 14/291,807 3 I. Claims 1–9 and 21 over Yudovsky,2 Chen,3 and Umotoy;4 II. Claims 1–3 and 21 over Yudovsky, Becker,5 and Umotoy; III. Claims 12–16 over Yudovsky, Chen, and Umotoy; and IV. Claims 12 and 13 Yudovsky, Becker, and Umotoy. OPINION We review the appealed rejection for reversible error based on the arguments and evidence presented by Appellant. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); 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) (explaining that even if the Examiner had failed to make a prima facie case, “it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”). We address the claims separately to the extent they are so argued by Appellant. 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(1)(iv). Rejection I First portion, first angle We begin by noting that Appellant does not dispute––much less identify reversible error in––the Examiner’s finding that the claimed first angle of the gas passageway is a result-effective variable. See Final Act. 13 (finding that “the workable ranges of the first and/or third angle of Yudovskyʼ334 to effect the manner that gas flows to the substrate” would have been optimizable via “routine experimentation of a result effective 2 US 2011/0223334 A1, published September 15, 2011. 3 US 2004/0144311 A1, published July 29, 2004. 4 US 2003/0140857 A1, published July 31, 2003. 5 US 2010/0183825 A1, published July 22, 2010. Appeal 2020-003904 Application 14/291,807 4 variable (i.e., changing such parameter is recognized to have effects on one or more properties or characteristics)”); Yudovsky ¶ 34 (disclosing “[c]ircular gas flows 174” such as a spiral gas flow extending around central axis 133 within channel 134 mapped to the claimed second portion); id. ¶¶ 59–60 (teaching that “a spiral flow across the surface of substrate 110 may not be desirable” and that “surface 160 [mapped to the claimed third portion] . . . may be tapered from gas dispersing channel 134 . . . to help provide an improved velocity profile of a gas flow”). Thus, Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s position that the claimed first angle would have been optimizable by the skilled artisan. On this basis alone, Appellant’s arguments regarding the first portion and first angle are unpersuasive of reversible error in the rejection. Appellant’s argument challenging the Examiner’s finding that the relied-upon prior art discloses the recited “first, consistent angle of between 70 and 110 degrees” fares no better. Appeal Br. 6–16. Specifically, Appellant argues that the Examiner improperly relies on the drawings depicted in Yudovsky and Umotoy to evince this claimed angle because the drawings are not designated as being drawn to scale. Id. at 7–8. We discern no error in the Examiner’s finding that Yudovsky evinces an angle of “about 90 degrees” in the first portion’s inner sidewall. Yudovsky Figs. 1A, 1B; Final Act. 4–5. Figures 1A and 1B clearly show a perpendicular relationship––i.e., a 90 degree angle––between the inner sidewall of cylindrical upper portion 351 and substrate surface 111. See In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972) (explaining that things that are clearly shown in patent drawings should not be disregarded). Furthermore, Yudovsky indicates that “[g]as dispersing channel 134 extends perpendicular towards substrate receiving surface 111 and also extends Appeal 2020-003904 Application 14/291,807 5 along central axis 133” of channel 134. Yudovsky ¶ 33. This disclosure, at a minimum, suggests that the interior wall of “first portion” 351 is at a 90 degree angle relative to substrate surface 111. Second portion, second angle The Examiner finds that Yudovsky discloses a second portion “having an inner sidewall continuous with the inner sidewall of the first portion and disposed at a second angle with respect to the support surface, but does not expressly disclose that “the second angle continuously radially diverges along the inner sidewall of the second portion between the first and third angles” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 4–5, 8. The Examiner finds that Yudovsky teaches that the inner wall of channel 134, which the Examiner maps to the gas passageway’s second portion, may have different shapes and that changing the shape of the inner sidewall would have been an obvious matter of design choice. Id. at 4, 8; Yudovsky ¶ 40. Appellant argues that Yudovsky’s teachings regarding channel 134 do not constitute a disclosure of the claimed second angle that “continuously radially diverges.” Appeal Br. 12–13. Appellant also asserts that the second angle’s continuous radial divergence would not have been a matter of design choice because it was “determined by the inventors to have an optimum, desired effect on gas flow in a process chamber.” Id. at 14. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s first argument because the Examiner acknowledges that Yudovsky does not expressly disclose the claimed continuous radial divergence of the second angle. Final Act. 8. The Examiner’s position is based upon design choice, and we also discern no persuasive merit in Appellant’s assertion that rationale. In the context of a rejection based on design choice, we must consider whether the alleged Appeal 2020-003904 Application 14/291,807 6 differences between the claimed invention and the prior art “result in a difference in function or give unexpected results” or whether they are “no more than obvious variations consistent with the principles known in that art.” In re Rice, 341 F.2d 309, 314 (CCPA 1965). Here, Appellant has provided no evidence of unexpected results or a difference in function when using the claimed second angle that continuously radially diverges along the inner sidewall of the second portion between the first and third angles. Rather, Appellant relies on unsupported attorney argument. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Moreover, Appellant has not explained how it would have been beyond the level of the skilled artisan to have used a second angle that continuously radially diverges along the inner sidewall of the second portion between the first and third angles. Choosing such an angle would have been within the ambit of the skilled artisan if she desired to construct a continuous sidewall joining the three separate portions of the chamber, particularly in light of Yudovsky’s and Chen’s teachings that channel 134 can have a variety of configurations including a curved inner surface. Yudovsky ¶ 40 (“Gas dispersing channel 134 may gradually taper and contain . . . a concave surface [or] a convex surface”); Chen ¶ 36 (“The expanding conduit may include one or more tapered inner surfaces, such as a straight tapered surface, a concave surface, [and] a convex surface”). Appeal 2020-003904 Application 14/291,807 7 Third portion, third angle Regarding the claimed third angle vis-à-vis the substrate surface, the Examiner finds that Umotoy discloses this relationship in Figure 4.6 Final Act. 12. Appellant again argues that Umotoy’s drawings are not designated as being drawn to scale and therefore cannot be relied on to define precise proportions of the elements contained therein. Appeal Br. 7–8. We again disagree. Umotoy’s Figure 4 as provided at page 12 of the Final Office Action is reproduced below: 6 We also note that the Examiner makes inconsistent statements whether Yudovsky also teaches this angle. Final Act. 6, 11. In view of these conflicting findings, we focus our discussion on Umotoy. Appeal 2020-003904 Application 14/291,807 8 Umotoy’s Figure 4 depicts “a vertical sectional view of a funnel-shaped dispersion plate.” Umotoy ¶ 18. Consistent with the Examiner’s findings, Umotoy’s Figure 4 illustrates plate 18 having angle 47 at output face 44, which is disclosed to be between 60 and 80 degrees from center axis 48 to output face 44. Id. ¶ 33. Plate 18 is disclosed to be “attached to an upper wall 13 of chamber 16” depicted in Figure 1. Id. Based on these express disclosures in Umotoy, we determine that the skilled artisan would have understood that Umotoy’s “third angle” vis-à-vis the substrate surface is between 5 and 30 degrees, which overlaps with the claimed 2 to 12 degrees, thus establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“A prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art.”). We additionally note that, as with the first portion and first angle, Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s finding that the claimed third angle of the gas passageway is a result-effective variable. See Final Act. 13. For this additional reason, Appellant’s arguments regarding this claim limitation are unpersuasive. In sum, because Appellant fails to identify reversible error in Rejection I, we sustain it. Rejection III The Examiner’s rejection of claims 12–16 is set forth at pages 26–34 of the Final Office Action. Independent claim 12 is similar to apparatus claim 1, but further requires that the first and second gas inlets supply a first and second gas, respectively, at different flow rates, and that “a ratio of the second flow rate Appeal 2020-003904 Application 14/291,807 9 to the first flow rate is predetermined depending on the specific process being performed in the substrate processing chamber.” Appeal Br. 30–31 (Claims App.). Appellant advances two main arguments against this rejection. First, Appellant argues that none of the cited prior art teach or suggest the claimed ratio of flow rates. Appeal Br. 22–24. That argument is unpersuasive. As the Examiner undisputedly determines (Ans. 22), this limitation amounts to an intended use of the first and second gas inlets, and fails to differentiate the structure of the apparatus being claimed. Appellant also relies on the same arguments advanced with respect to claim 1 regarding the claimed angularity. Appeal Br. 24–25. We reject those arguments here for the same reasons provided supra. For these reasons, we sustain Rejection III. Rejections II & IV Our affirmance of Rejections I and III, supra, is dispositive of all the claims involved in the appeal. Thus, it is not necessary to address these grounds of rejection. See In re Hyon, 679 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (Affirmance of rejection of all claims under § 103(a) made it unnecessary to reach other grounds of rejection); Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (Having decided a single dispositive issue, the ITC was not required to review other matters decided by the presiding officer). CONCLUSION Rejections I and III are affirmed. We decline to reach Rejections II and IV. Appeal 2020-003904 Application 14/291,807 10 DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) / Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–9 and 21 103 Yudovsky, Chen, Umotoy 1–9 and 21 1–3 and 21 1037 Yudovsky, Becker, Umotoy 12–16 103 Yudovsky, Chen, Umotoy 12–16 12 and 13 1038 Yudovsky, Becker, Umotoy Overall Outcome 1–9, 12– 16, and 21 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED 7 This rejection was not reached in view of our affirmance of Rejection I. 8 This rejection was not reached in view of our affirmance of Rejection III.