APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 12, 20212020002721 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2021) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation