Applied Materials, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 24, 20212020003856 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 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. 14/593,873 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation