Applied Materials, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 27, 2020

14610489 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2020)

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.
14/610,489 01/30/2015 Lai ZHAO 021181USA 6352
44257 7590 03/27/2020
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPLIED MATERIALS
24 GREENWAY PLAZA
SUITE 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
EXAMINER
CHEN, KEATH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2020 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):
Pair_Eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LAI ZHAO, GAKU FURUTA, QUNHUA WANG,
ROBIN L. TINER, BEOM SOO PARK,
SOO YOUNG CHOI, and SANJAY D. YADAV

Appeal 2019-000413
Application 14/610,489
Technology Center 1700
Before N. WHITNEY WILSON, BRIAN D. RANGE, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2019-000413
Application 14/610,489

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 11–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER2
Appellant’s Specification describes plasma deposition shadow frame
spoilers. Plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) is a known
way of depositing thin films on a substrate for a flat panel display or a
semiconductor wafer. Spec. ¶ 3. During such a process, a shadow frame may
be placed over the periphery of the substrate to prevent unwanted deposition
on the support that holds the substrate. Id. ¶ 20 (describing Figure 1 which
Appellant labeled as “prior art”). Deposition rates may be too high on corner
or edge regions of a substrate (a problem, for example, when depositing on a
panel for a large LCD or flat panel display). Id. ¶¶ 3–7. Appellant describes
use of a “corner spoiler” situated on the shadow frame that decreases high
deposition rates on corner or edge regions. Id. ¶¶ 7, 26, Fig. 2. Claim 11,
reproduced below with emphasis added to recitations key to this appeal, is
illustrative:

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.
2 In this Decision, we refer to the Non-Final Office Action dated May 4,
2018 (“Non-Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed August 13, 2018 (“Appeal
Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated September 14, 2018 (“Ans.”), and the
Reply Brief filed October 18, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2019-000413
Application 14/610,489

3
11. A shadow frame for a processing chamber comprising:
a rectangular shaped body having a rectangular opening
therethrough, an inside edge and an outside edge; and
one or more corner spoilers coupled to a top surface
of the rectangular shaped body at one or more corners of
the rectangular shaped body and disposed within an area
bounded by the inside edge and the outside edge of the
rectangular shaped body,
wherein the one or more corner spoilers comprises:
an L-shaped body fabricated from a dielectric
material, wherein the L-shaped body is configured to
change plasma distribution at a corner of a substrate in
the processing chamber, and wherein the L-shaped body
comprises:
a first leg has an end with an inside corner and an
outside corner;
and
a second leg has an end with an inside corner and
an outside corner, wherein the first and second legs meet
at an inside corner and an outside corner of the L-shaped
body.

Appeal Br. 17 (emphasis added). The second independent claim on appeal,
claim 13, similarly recites corner spoilers and the coupling and disposition
of the spoilers. Id. at 18.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Name
Choi et al.
(“Choi”)
Koshiishi et al.
(“Koshiishi”)
Ishibashi et al.
(“Ishibashi”)
Yang et al.
Reference
US 2006/0228496 A1

US 2007/0169891 A1

US 2007/0264441 A1

US 2011/0053356 A1
Date
Oct. 12, 2006

July 26, 2007

Nov. 15, 2007

Mar. 3, 2011
Appeal 2019-000413
Application 14/610,489

4
(“Yang”)
Liu et al.
(“Liu”)
Kim
Cho et al.
(“Cho”)

US 2011/0304086 A1

US 2014/0158046 A1
KR 10-0903306

Dec. 15, 2011

June 12, 2014
June 10, 2009

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains3 the following rejections on appeal:
A. Claims 11–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Cho in view of
Koshiishi, and Ishibashi. Ans. 3.
B. Claims 13, 14, and 16–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Cho
in view of Liu, Koshiishi, and Ishibashi. Id. at 6.
C. Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Cho in view of Liu,
Koshiishi, and Ishibashi further in view of Kim. Id. at 9.
D. Claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Cho in view of Liu,
Koshiishi, and Ishibashi further in view of Choi. Id. at 10.
E. Claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Cho in view of Liu,
Koshiishi, Ishibashi, and Choi further in view of Yang. Id.

OPINION
The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case
of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the
prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of

3 The Examiner provides reasoning in the Answer that the Examiner
designates as a new ground of rejection. Ans. 11–13.
Appeal 2019-000413
Application 14/610,489

5
unpatentability.”). To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the
Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described
or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on the
knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art or the inferences and creative
steps a person of ordinary skill in the art would have employed. In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
To resolve the issues before us on appeal, we focus on the Examiner’s
findings and determinations that relate to the error Appellant identifies. Ans.
3 (citing Cho). In particular, the Examiner finds that Cho (which the
Examiner refers to as ’306) teaches shield material 260 which the Examiner
equates to the rectangular shaped body of Appellant’s claims 11 and 13. The
Examiner equates Cho’s “holding surface extension part 240” to the recited
“one or more corner spoilers” of claims 11 and 13. Id. at 4.
The Examiner finds that Cho does not teach that the corner spoiler is
coupled to the top surface of the rectangular shaped body or disposed within
the edges of the body. Id. The Examiner finds, however, that Koshiishi
(which the Examiner refers to as ’891) teaches a focus ring with a lower
member 9 that can be adjusted to affect impedence and plasma level. Id. at
4–5 (citing Koshiishi). The Examiner also finds that Ishibashi (which the
Examiner refers to as ’441) teaches that use of a hanging portion 21 can be
used to “control the concentration degree of the electric field.” Id. at 5
(citing Ishibashi).
The Examiner provides further reasoning as a new ground of rejection
where the Examiner finds that Koshiishi and Ishibashi teach that the
“thickness, width, and location of the protruding portion of the dielectric
Appeal 2019-000413
Application 14/610,489

6
material affects the electric field and plasma.” Id. at 11–12 (citing Koshiishi
and Ishibashi). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
rearrange Cho’s extension part 240 to the top of shield material 260 to
reduce plasma edge effect. Id. at 5, 12.
Appellant argues that the Examiner improperly relies on hindsight to
move Cho’s extension part 240 so that it would be both attached to the
rectangular shaped body of the shadow frame and bounded by the edges of
the rectangular shaped body of the shadow frame. Appeal Br. 7–10.
Appellant’s argument persuades us of reversible error.
Appellant argues that Cho arranged its extension part 240 to address
an edge effect generated by a vertex of the substrate. Appeal Br. 8. Because
the record only includes a machine translation of Cho, the portions of Cho
cited by Appellant are unclear. See Cho 6. This lack of clarity weighs against
the Examiner; because of the unclear translation, we cannot determine that a
preponderance of the evidence indicates that the extension part 240 of Cho
could be rearranged without disrupting Cho’s purpose.
Meanwhile, Koshiishi teaches a focus ring 8 that serves to prevent
plasma from reaching the backside surface of the end portion of the
semiconductor wafer W. Appeal Br. 9–10; Koshiishi Fig. 2, 17, ¶¶ 74–76.
Ishibashi teaches a protruding portion 24 that hangs well above the substrate
that is being worked on. Appeal Br. 11; Ishiibashi Fig. 5, ¶¶ 72–73. None of
the references individually teach or suggest an L-shaped spoiler “coupled to
a top surface of a rectangular shaped body at one or more corners” and
“disposed within an area bounded by the inside edge and the outside edge of
the rectangular shaped body” as claims 11 and 13 recite. Moreover, the
Examiner has not persuasively explained why a person of skill in the art
Appeal 2019-000413
Application 14/610,489

7
would modify Cho based upon the quite different teachings of Koshiishi or
Ishiibashi to reach these recitations.
For an obviousness conclusion to be proper, the Examiner must
establish a reason why a person of skill in the art would reach the recited
spoiler coupling and location. One way the Examiner could meet this burden
is by a result effective variable rationale: “discovery of an optimal value of a
result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of
the art.” In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980). Here, while the
references may collectively teach that geometry of the wafer processing area
affects the electric field, plasma, and, thus, thickness of coatings on the
substrate (see, e.g., Ans. 12), we do not agree that this is sufficient for the
location of Cho’s extension part 240 to be merely a result effect variable.
Determining geometry is not merely discovery of an optimal value that
would necessarily be within the ordinary skill of the art. Rather, the
references as a whole suggest that a wide variety of geometries may be
employed to reach different goals of wafer production. The geometry
options are numerous and varied, and the Examiner has not, on this record,
indicated that reaching Appellant’s recited solutions would be predictable.
As such, we do not, on this record, conclude that moving Cho’s extension
part 240 would be the type of mere optimization that is appropriately
addressed by a result effective variable theory of obviousness. See KSR Int’l
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (explaining that an “obvious to
try” rational of obviousness is appropriate “[w]hen there is a design need or
market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of
identified, predictable solutions”).
Appeal 2019-000413
Application 14/610,489

8
Because the Examiner has not adequately explained why, absent
hindsight, a person of skill in the art would have had reason to reach the
recitations of independent claims 11 and 13, we do not sustain the rejection
of those claims. Because the Examiner’s treatment of dependent claims does
not cure this error, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s treatment of the
dependent claims on appeal.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
11, 12 103 Cho, Koshiishi,
Ishibashi
11, 12
13, 14, 16–
18
13, 14, 16–18 Cho, Liu, Koshiishi,
Ishibashi
13, 14, 16–
18
15 15 Cho, Liu, Koshiishi,
Ishibashi, Kim
15
19 19 Cho, Liu, Koshiishi,
Ishibashi, Choi
19
20 20 Cho, Liu, Koshiishi,
Ishibashi, Choi, Yang
20
Overall
Outcome
11–20

REVERSED