APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 12, 2021

2020002721 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 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.
14/620,781 02/12/2015 JEN SERN LEW 22469USA 9907
55649 7590 03/12/2021
Moser Taboada / Applied Materials, Inc.
1030 Broad Street
Suite 203
Shrewsbury, NJ 07702
EXAMINER
ADHLAKHA, RITA P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1711
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/12/2021 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 JEN SERN LEW,
SRISKANTHARAJAH THIRUNAVUKARASU, and
MUKUND SUNDARARAJAN
____________

Appeal 2020-002721
Application 14/620,781
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, LILAN REN, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to finally reject claims 1, 3–8, 10–13, and 21–27. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Applied
Materials, Inc.” Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-002721
Application 14/620,781

2
Appellant’s invention relates to “an apparatus for removing
particles from a substrate contact surface.” Spec. ¶ 5. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the subject matter claimed and is reproduced below:
1. An apparatus for removing particles from a
substrate contact surface during substrate processing,
comprising:
a substrate contact surface configured to support a
substrate during handling or processing of the substrate during a
manufacturing process;
a plurality of parallel electrodes disposed beneath the
substrate contact surface; and
an alternating current (AC) power supply having a first
AC terminal connected to a first one of the parallel electrodes
and a second AC terminal connected to a second one of the
parallel electrodes adjacent to the first one of the parallel
electrodes, wherein an AC output of the first AC terminal has a
different phase than an AC output of the second AC terminal.
Appellant requests review of the following rejections from the
Examiner’s Final Office Action dated May 17, 2019:
I. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6–8, 10–13, 21, and 23–27 rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Yonekura (US 2008/0037196 A1,
published February 14, 2008), Chen (US 6,660,528 B1, issued December 9,
2003), Doering (Robert Doering & Yoshio Nishi, Handbook of
Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology (2nd ed. 2008)), and Mazumder
(US 2013/0263393 A1, published October 10, 2013).

II. Claims 5 and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Yonekura, Chen, Doering, Mazumder, and Kim (US 7,502,233 B2,
issued March 10, 2009).

OPINION
Appeal 2020-002721
Application 14/620,781

3

After review of the respective positions Appellant provides in the
Appeal and Reply Briefs and the Examiner provides in the Final Office
Action and the Answer, we reverse the Examiner’s prior art rejections of
claims 1, 3–8, 10–13, and 21–27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons
Appellant provides. We add the following for emphasis.

Claim 1 (35 U.S.C. § 103)2, 3
Claim 1 recites an apparatus comprising an alternating current (AC)
power supply having a first AC terminal connected to a first one of parallel
electrodes and a second AC terminal connected to a second one of parallel
electrodes adjacent to the first one of the parallel electrodes, wherein an AC
output of the first AC terminal has a different phase than an AC output of the
second AC terminal.
The Examiner finds Yonekura discloses an electrostatic chuck
comprising a substrate contact surface for contacting substrates and having a
plurality of parallel electrodes connected to different terminals. Final Act. 3;
Yonekura Figures 1A. 1B, 5A, 6A, 6B, Abstr, ¶¶ 14–16, 57, 58. Yonekura’s
electrostatic chuck “reliably supports even a large-sized work made of an
electrical insulating material such as a LCD panel, and is adequately used for
a work delivery operation and the like.” Yonekura ¶ 12. Yonekura

2 We limit our discussion to sole independent claim 1.
3 A discussion of Chen and Doering is unnecessary for disposition of this
appeal. The Examiner relies on these references only to establish that the
surface of electrostatic chucks are known to suffer from particles
accumulating on the surface. Final Act. 3–4; Chen col. 7, ll. 1–4; Doering 2.
Appellant generally acknowledges this problem in the Specification. Spec.
¶¶ 2–3.
Appeal 2020-002721
Application 14/620,781

4
discloses providing two sets of a plurality of electrodes and using a positive
high-voltage power supply connected to one set of electrodes and a negative
high-voltage power supply connected to the other set of electrodes to apply
respective positive or negative voltages that generates a non-uniform electric
field on the surface of the electrostatic chuck to hold a work. Yonekura
Figure 2, ¶¶ 35–36, 41.
The Examiner finds Yonekura fails to disclose the use of a separate
alternating current (AC) power supplies connected to each respective set of a
plurality of electrodes where each AC power supply generates an AC output
having different phases as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3.
The Examiner finds Mazumder discloses the claimed plurality of
parallel electrodes/alternating current (AC) power supply arrangement for
removing particles from insulating/dielectric surfaces. Final Act. 4;
Mazumder Figures 3, 7, 8, ¶¶ 8, 45, 169. Mazumder “is directed to
transparent electrodynamic screens (EDS) for protecting solar panels and
solar concentrators using automatic and efficient dust removal.” Mazumder
¶ 8. Mazumder discloses an electrodynamic screen including “rows of
transparent parallel electrodes embedded within a transparent dielectric
film” that are activated by “phased voltage” provided by an alternating
electric field to remove dust particles. Id. Mazumder discloses that the
transparent parallel electrodes can be energized using a poly-phase AC drive
signal, such as a three-phase AC drive signal, that produces a traveling wave
that removes the dust particles. Mazumder Figure 2, ¶¶ 45, 59.
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify Yonekura’s device to incorporate the
Appeal 2020-002721
Application 14/620,781

5
dielectric surface particle removing means of Mazumder below the dielectric
surface of Yonekura’s device to ensure that the substrate contact surface for
contacting substrates is free of particles prior to operation. Final Act. 4.
Thus, the premise of the Examiner’s rejection is that one skilled in the art
would incorporate Mazumder’s surface particle removal means including
Mazumder’s electrodes and power supply into Yonekura’s electrostatic
chuck.
Appellant argues that Mazumder is directed to a solar panel, and more
particularly to a protective screen disposed atop a solar panel, which is not a
substrate contact surface that supports a substrate. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant
further argues the Examiner does not provide a reason explaining how one
skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention from the teachings of
the cited art. Id.
Appellant has identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination of obviousness.
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), quoted with
approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The
fact finder must be aware “of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and
must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning.” KSR, 550
U.S. at 421 (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 36 (1966)
Appeal 2020-002721
Application 14/620,781

6
(“warning against a ‘temptation to read into the prior art the teachings of the
invention in issue’”)).
Appellant’s arguments point to the different technological aspects
between the apparatuses of Yonekura and Mazumder. See generally Appeal
Br. In essence, the Examiner is proposing to combine two distinct devices
having two different types of electrodes and two distinct types of power
supplies (positive/negative high voltage power supplies versus an AC
polyphaser power supply), where Yonekura’s device supports a work on a
surface and Mazumder’s device is for cleaning a surface, without providing
an adequate technical explanation of how one skilled in the art would have
combined these two devices and still reasonably expect that the presence of
the two types of electrodes/power sources would not impair Yonekura’s
principal function to support a work. Thus, the Examiner does not explain
adequately how one skilled in the art, absent impermissible hindsight, would
have arrived at the claimed invention from the teachings of the cited art.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons Appellant provides and we give
above.

Appeal 2020-002721
Application 14/620,781

7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 4, 6–8,
10–13, 21,
23–27
103 Yonekura, Chen,
Doering,
Mazumder
1, 3, 4, 6–8,
10–13, 21,
23–27
5, 22 103 Yonekura, Chen,
Doering,
Mazumder, Kim
5, 22
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–8,
10–13,
21–27

REVERSED