Applied Materials, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 24, 2021

2020003856 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 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.
14/593,873 01/09/2015 Son Nguyen 080042-022540USA-0925365 3980
57385 7590 03/24/2021
AMAT / Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
ARANT, HARRY E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/24/2021 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):
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SON NGUYEN, DMITRY LUBOMIRSKY
CHUNGMAN KIM, and KIRBY H. FLOYD
____________________

Appeal 2020-003856
Application 14/593,873
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2020-003856
Application 14/593,873

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision in the Office Action mailed October 9, 2018 (“Office
Act.”) to reject claims 1–4, 6, 8, 9, 11–19, and 22. Office Act. 3–12. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s claims relate to “a temperature control system via the
substrate support pedestal [in a semiconductor processing chamber] that may
maintain the pedestal at more uniform temperatures, and may be capable of
faster reaction to changing system loads.” Spec. ¶ 21; see also id. ¶ 4
(describing a need for improved system components to provide “more
precise temperature control during chamber operations as well as from one
chamber to the next”). Claims 1, 11, and 19 are independent, and claims 1
and 11, reproduced below with bracketed notations added, are illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A semiconductor processing system comprising:
[(a)] a substrate pedestal;
[(b)] a delivery fluid channel configured to deliver a
temperature controlled fluid to the substrate pedestal;

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 2020-003856
Application 14/593,873

3
[(c)] a return fluid channel configured to return the
temperature controlled fluid from the substrate pedestal;
[(d)] a cooling device coupled with the return fluid
channel and the delivery fluid channel, wherein the cooling
device is configured to cool fluid received from the return fluid
channel and deliver the cooled fluid to the delivery fluid channel;
[(e)] a heater coupled with the delivery fluid channel,
wherein the heater is configured to have a response time per 1°
C of less than 5 seconds from receipt of a communication from
the temperature measurement device;
[(f)] a temperature measurement device coupled with the
return fluid channel between the substrate pedestal and the
cooling device, wherein the temperature measurement device is
communicatively coupled to the heater providing temperature
readings directly to the heater; and
[(g)] a flow controller coupled with the return fluid
channel upstream of the temperature measurement device.

11. A method of controlling a semiconductor processing
system pedestal temperature, the method comprising:
[(a)] delivering a temperature controlled fluid to a
semiconductor processing system pedestal through a first
channel;
[(b)] receiving the temperature controlled fluid from the
semiconductor processing system pedestal through a second
channel;
[(c)] measuring the temperature of the received
temperature controlled fluid in the second channel with a
temperature measurement device;
[(d)] communicating the measured temperature to a first
temperature control device coupled with the first channel,
Appeal 2020-003856
Application 14/593,873

4
wherein the temperature measuring device is in direct
communication with the first temperature control device,
wherein the first temperature control device is configured to have
a response time per 1° C of less than 5 seconds from receipt of a
communication from the temperature measurement device; and
[(e)] adjusting the temperature of the temperature
controlled fluid.
Appeal Br. 15–16 (Claims App’x.).

REJECTIONS2
I. Claims 1–3, 6, 8, 9, 19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Sloan and Getchel.3 Office Act. 3–7; Ans. 3–6.
II. Claims 11, 12, and 14–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Iwasaki4 and Getchel. Office Act. 7–10; Ans. 6–7.

2 We treat the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (see Office
Act. 2) as withdrawn, in light of the Examiner’s entry of a subsequent
amendment to this claim filed by Appellant to overcome the rejection. See
Advisory Action, mailed November 18, 2019 (entering Appellant’s
amendment to change the dependency of claim 21 so as to not depend from
a canceled claim).
3 Sloan (US 6,308,776 B1, issued Oct. 30, 2001); Getchel
(US 2002/0062954 A1, published May 30, 2002). Although the heading for
the rejection does not identify claim 21 as subject to rejection (Office Act.
3), we treat this omission as inadvertent in light of the rejection set forth at
page 7 of the Office Action. See Adv. Act. 2 (indicating that claim 21, as
amended, “would be rejected as in the Non-Final rejection dated
10/9/2019”).
4 Iwasaki (US 2006/0219360 A1, published Oct. 5, 2006).
Appeal 2020-003856
Application 14/593,873

5
III. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sloan,
Getchel, Saito, and Singh.5 Office Act. 11.
IV. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Iwasaki, Getchel, and Sloan. Office Act. 11–12.

ANALYSIS
Rejection I
The Examiner concludes that the subject matter of claims 1–3, 6, 8, 9,
19, 21, and 22 would have been obvious from the combined teachings of
Sloan and Getchel. Office Act. 3–7; Ans. 3–6. As explained below, the
Examiner misconstrues the term “upstream” (i.e., “a flow controller coupled
with the at least one return fluid channel upstream of the temperature
measurement device”), as recited in claim 1, limitation (g), and
consequently, does not show how the prior art meets that limitation. The
Examiner finds that Sloan discloses: a flow controller (recirculating pump
30), a temperature measurement device (main coolant temperature sensor 14,
workstation temperature control 42, sensor lead 44) coupled with the return
fluid channel, and a cooling device (cooling vehicle 12).6 Office Act. 3–4
(citing Sloan 3:16–33, Fig. 1); see also Sloan 2:32–33 (describing that
sensor 14 detects the temperature of the fluid coolant).

5 Saito (US 2003/0031905 A1, published Feb. 13, 2003); Singh
(US 2010/0116788 A1, published May 13, 2010).
6 Parenthetical nomenclature is to the prior art reference, in this case, Sloan.
Appeal 2020-003856
Application 14/593,873

6
The Examiner further finds that Sloan’s temperature measurement
device is not positioned between the substrate pedestal and the cooling
device, and relies on Getchel for the position of the temperature
measurement device relative to the other specified portions of the system.
Office Act. 4–5 (citing Getchel ¶ 63, Fig. 1); see also Appeal Br. 8
(acknowledging that the Examiner relies on Getchel, and not Sloan,
regarding the position of the temperature measurement device).
Specifically, the Examiner finds that Getchel’s temperature measurement
device (temperature sensor T6) is: coupled to a return fluid channel (single
return line 116), communicatively coupled with heaters (controller 50,
power supply 60, heaters H1, H2, H3), and able to provide temperature
readings directly to the heater. Office Act. 4–5 (citing Getchel ¶ 63);
Getchel ¶¶ 38–40, 45, Fig. 1.
Appellant argues, and we agree, that the Examiner’s finding with
respect to Getchel does not properly address the claimed position of the
temperature measurement device — namely, that the flow controller is
upstream of the temperature measurement device, as required by
limitation (g) of claim 1. Appeal Br. 8.
The Examiner responds that the flow controller need not be upstream
of the temperature measurement device, because claim 1 does not establish a
point of reference for the term “upstream.” See Ans. 3 (concluding that the
claim language is met if “both the temperature measurement device and flow
controller are located on the return fluid channel”). Not only does the
Appeal 2020-003856
Application 14/593,873

7
Examiner’s claim interpretation improperly render the term “upstream”
meaningless, but it also is inconsistent with the language of limitation (g),
which recites that the flow controller is “upstream of the temperature
measurement device.” See Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d
1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim constructions that render
phrases in claims superfluous). Put simply, the claimed “temperature
measurement device” positioned in the return fluid channel relative to the
flow controller is the Examiner’s “point of reference” for the term
“upstream.”
Here, limitation (b) of claim 1 recites that the delivery fluid channel
delivers fluid to the substrate pedestal, and the return fluid channel returns
fluid from the substrate pedestal. Limitation (c) of claim 1 recites that the
cooling device receives fluid from the return fluid channel and delivers fluid
to the delivery fluid channel. The combination of limitations (b) and (c)
establishes a loop for circulating fluid through the substrate pedestal and
cooling device, with fluid flowing from the substrate pedestal to the cooling
device by the return fluid channel and from the cooling device to the
substrate pedestal by the delivery flow channel. The Examiner takes the
position that because “Sloan teaches a circular system wherein coolant is
recirculated through the components,” “any two components within the flow
path can reasonably be interpreted as being upstream to one another.”
Ans. 3.
Appeal 2020-003856
Application 14/593,873

8
However, the Examiner’s determination fails to account for the
combination of features, set forth in limitations (c), (d), (f), and (g) of claim
1, which requires: (1) fluid in the return fluid channel to flow from the
substrate pedestal (limitation (c)) to the cooling device (limitation (d)); and
(2) both the temperature measurement device and flow controller to be
placed in the return fluid channel, with the flow controller being “upstream”
the temperature measurement device (limitations (f) and (g)). Together
these limitations require fluid to flow through the return fluid channel
according to the following sequence: substrate pedestal, flow controller
(upstream the temperature measurement device), temperature measurement
device, and cooling device. This interpretation is consistent with the
Specification. See Spec. ¶¶ 46–51, Fig. 5 (depicting fluid in return fluid
channel 510 flowing from substrate pedestal 505 to flow controller 530, next
to temperature measurement device 525, and then to cooling device 520);
see also Appeal Br. 5–6 (asserting this flow sequence); Reply Br. 3.
Therefore, we agree with Appellant that the rejection of claim 1 does
not address limitation (g). Consequently, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 or the claims that depend from claim 1 (claims 2, 3, 6,
8, 9, 21, and 22).
Independent claim 19 is similar to independent claim 1 in that it
requires the flow controller to be coupled with the return fluid channel
upstream of the temperature measurement device. Appeal Br. 17 (Claims
App’x). In rejecting claim 19, the Examiner relies on Sloan and Getchel for
Appeal 2020-003856
Application 14/593,873

9
the claimed flow controller in the same manner set forth in the rejection of
claim 1. See Office Act. 6–7. Consequently, we agree with Appellant that
the rejection of independent claim 19 suffers from the same shortcomings as
claim 1. See Appeal Br. 12–13; Ans. 7 (stating that Appellant’s arguments
regarding claim 19 are like those against the rejection of claim 1); Reply
Br. 7.

Rejection II
The question before us for this rejection is whether the Examiner
erred in finding that the combination of Iwaski and Getchel teaches two
limitations of claim 11. See Appeal Br. 11–12; Reply Br. 5–7. We limit our
discussion to independent claim 11 because Appellant argues the claims
subject to this rejection as a group. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The first argued limitation of claim 11 deals with the requirement of
limitation (d) to communicate measured temperature to a first temperature
control device, with the temperature measuring device being in “direct
communication” with the first temperature control device. See Appeal Br.
11–12; Reply Br. 5–7.
The Examiner finds that Iwaski discloses a first temperature control
device (inline heater 40, power supply 42, and temperature controller 54),
and a temperature measurement device (temperature sensor 52). Office
Act. 8 (citing Iwaski ¶ 69). The Examiner further finds that Iwasaki’s
temperature measurement device (temperature sensor 52) does not measure
Appeal 2020-003856
Application 14/593,873

10
temperature in the second channel. However, the Examiner finds that
Getchel’s temperature measurement device (sensor T6) measures the
temperature in a second channel (return line 116), and is in direct
communication with a first temperature control device (controller 50, power
supply 60, heaters H1, H2, H3). Id. (citing Getchel ¶ 63). The Examiner
relies on Getchel to reposition Iwaski’s temperature measurement device to
the second channel, as required by claim 11.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding Getchel teaches
“the temperature measuring device is in direct communication with the first
temperature control device,” as recited in claim 11, limitation (d). Appeal
Br. 12; Reply Br. 6–7. More specifically, Appellant contends that Getchel’s
temperature sensing device (temperature sensor T6) is not in direct
communication with the first temperature control device because it
communicates with controller 50 and not Getchel’s heaters (heaters H1, H2,
H3). Appeal Br. 12 (“Paragraph [0063] of Getchel specifically states that all
thermocouples are coupled to controller 50, which may then cause
adjustments elsewhere in the system.”). Yet, the Examiner finds that
controller 50 is part of the claimed first temperature control device. Office
Act. 8; see also Ans. 5. Accordingly, Appellant’s argument that temperature
sensor T6 is in communication with controller 50 of the first temperature
control device fails to apprise us of Examiner error.
In the Answer, the Examiner provides further technical reasoning to
support the finding that Getchel’s controller 50, power supply 60, and
Appeal 2020-003856
Application 14/593,873

11
heaters H1, H2, and H3 teach the claimed first temperature control device.
Ans. 5–6. In particular, the Examiner explains that it is reasonable to
interpret the claimed first temperature control device to include a controller,
such as Getchel’s controller 50, to adjust heaters H1, H2, and H3 in response
to a communication from the temperature measurement device. Ans. 5–6.
Further evincing the reasonableness of the Examiner’s finding that the
combination of Getchel’s controller, power supply, and heaters teaches the
claimed first temperature control device, we note that Iwasaki teaches a
heating unit (or temperature control device) that comprises inline heater 40,
power supply 42 and temperature controller 54. Iwasaki ¶ 67.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in
finding that Getchel’s components 50, 60, H1, H2, and H3 teach the claimed
first temperature control device. Reply Br. 6. Specifically, Appellant asserts
that “there is no indication that any of the identified components are in any
way part of a single device.” Reply Br. 6. Yet, Appellant does not identify,
and we do not discern, any language in claim 11 or in the Specification that
precludes the first temperature control device from including a controller.
See Ans. 5 (observing that neither the claim language nor the Specification
supports Appellant’s interpretation). Appellant also does not persuasively
rebut the Examiner’s determination that the claimed first temperature control
device includes a controller, power supply, and heaters, under a broad, but
reasonable, interpretation. Consequently, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in finding Getchel teaches the claimed first temperature
Appeal 2020-003856
Application 14/593,873

12
control device comprising controller 50, power supply 60, and heaters H1,
H2, H3.
The second argued limitation of claim 11 deals with the claimed
temperature control device response time, as further recited in
limitation (d).7
The Examiner concludes that paragraph 6 of Iwasaki indicates that the
temperature response of a temperature control device (in the form of a
cooler) is a result-effective variable in the context of a temperature control
system and that it would have been obvious to optimize the temperature
response by choosing a first temperature control device having the response
time recited in claim 11. Office Act. 9; Ans. 12.
Appellant contends that Iwasaki fails to show that the temperature
response was result-effective, because paragraph 6 of Iwasaki describes
shortcomings in the temperature response of a cooling device, rather than of
a heater. Appeal Br. 12.
Yet, the claimed temperature control device of claim 11 is not limited
to a heating device. Rather, claim 11 more broadly recites, “a first
temperature control device,” a term that is broad enough to cover both a
heater and a cooler. Therefore, Appellant’s contention is unpersuasive
because it is not commensurate in scope with claim 11.

7 Claim 11 recites “a response time per 1° C of less than 5 second from
receipt of a communication from the temperature measurement device.”
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App’x).
Appeal 2020-003856
Application 14/593,873

13
Given that neither of Appellant’s arguments demonstrates error by the
Examiner, we sustain the rejection of claims 11, 12, and 14–18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Iwasaki and Getchel.

Rejections III and IV
The Examiner rejects claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Sloan, Getchel, Saito, and Singh; and claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Iwasaki, Getchel, and Sloan.8 Office Act. 11–12.
Appellant challenges these rejections solely on the basis that claims 4 and 13
depend ultimately from independent claims 1 and 11, respectively. Appeal
Br. 14. Appellant’s contention is persuasive as to claim 4 and not persuasive
as to claim 13. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 4, and we
sustain the rejection of claim 13.

8 The Examiner explains that Saito is relied on “as applied to claim 3 above”
(Final Act. 11); however, the rejection of claim 3 on page 5 of the Final
Office Action does not mention Saito. Because we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 4 based on the dependency of claim 4 from claim 1, we
need not further address this issue.

Appeal 2020-003856
Application 14/593,873

14
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 6, 8, 9,
19, 21, 22
103 Sloan, Getchel 1–3, 6, 8,
9, 19, 21,
22
11, 12, 14–
18
103 Iwasaki, Getchel 11, 12, 14–
18

4 103 Sloan, Getchel,
Saito, Singh
4
13 103 Iwasaki, Getchel,
Sloan
13
Overall
Outcome
11–18 1–4, 6, 8,
9, 19, 21,
22

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 IN PART