APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 30, 2020

13651354 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 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. 13/651,354 10/12/2012 VALENTIN TODOROW 16188USA02 8532 55649 7590 06/30/2020 Moser Taboada / Applied Materials, Inc. 1030 Broad Street Suite 203 Shrewsbury, NJ 07702 EXAMINER DEONAUTH, NIRVANA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3726 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/30/2020 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): 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 VALENTIN TODOROW, SAMER BANNA, IMAD YOUSIF, ALBERT WANG, and GARY LERAY Appeal 2020-000187 Application 13/651,354 Technology Center 3700 Before JILL D. HILL, LEE L. STEPINA, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges. HILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–7, and 21–30. See Final Act. 1. 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 2020-000187 Application 13/651,354 2 BACKGROUND Appellant’s invention relates to a process kit ring having a plurality of protrusions. Claims 1, 21, and 26 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the invention with certain limitations italicized: 1. A process kit ring for use with a substrate support of a process chamber, comprising: a ring shaped body having an outer edge, an inner edge, a top surface and a bottom forming a rectangular cross section, wherein the outer edge has a diameter of about 12.473 inches to about 12.479 inches and the inner edge has a diameter of about 11.726 inches to about 11.728 inches, and wherein the ring shaped body has a thickness of about 0.116 to about 0.118 inches; and a plurality of protrusions disposed on the top surface of the ring shaped body and configured to support an edge ring atop of the plurality of protrusions, each of the plurality of protrusions disposed symmetrically about the ring shaped body, wherein each of the plurality of protrusions has a height of about 0.049 inches to about 0.059 inches above the top surface of the ring shaped body. REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Heemstra US 2008/0289766 A1 Nov. 27, 2008 REJECTION Claims 1, 2, 4–7, and 21–30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Heemstra (US 2008/0289766, pub. Nov. 27, 2008). Final Act. 2. Appeal 2020-000187 Application 13/651,354 3 ANALYSIS Independent claims 1 and 26 recite, inter alia, a plurality of protrusions “configured to support an edge ring atop of the plurality of protrusions.” Appeal Br. 15, 17 (Claims App.). Independent claim 21 similarly and more specifically recites three protrusions “configured to support an edge ring atop of the three protrusions.” Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Heemstra discloses a ring shaped apparatus having a plurality of protrusions. Final Act. 2. The Examiner considers that, because Heemstra’s apparatus is capable of being used with an edge ring workpiece, Heemstra meets the above-noted “configured to” limitation. Final Act. 2–3; see also Ans. 14. Appellant asserts that Heemstra’s projections are not configured to support an edge ring. Appeal Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 5. According to Appellant, the protrusions of Heemstra are used to prevent the semiconductor wafer from moving outside the bounds of a process plane, which differs from the claimed protrusions supporting an edge ring thereontop. Id. at 11. Appellant has the better position. Although we appreciate that Heemstra discloses a plurality of protrusions 415, Heemstra’s protrusions “serve to maintain the position of the wafer while achieving a more uniform etch rate.” Heemstra ¶ 31. Appellant’s edge ring 228 instead is supported by the claimed protrusions as explained in Fig. 2, reproduced below. Appeal 2020-000187 Application 13/651,354 4 Figure 2 depicts a schematic view of Appellant’s substrate support. Spec. ¶ 11. Substrate support 116 includes edge ring 228 that is “about equal in height with a processing surface of the substrate 115 when disposed on the electrostatic chuck 218.” Spec. ¶ 28. Edge ring 228 improves processing near the peripheral edge of the substrate and protects the substrate support during processing. Id. The Specification further discloses an additional “ring 502 that may be used as the ring 232,” depicted in Figure 2. Spec. ¶ 31; see also Fig. 5A. Ring 502 includes a plurality (three shown) of protrusions 506 that support edge ring 228 of substrate support 116 atop the ring 502 “and provide a gap therebetween.” Id. ¶ 34; see also Fig. 5B. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the claimed ring is distinct from the edge ring, and that the function of the claimed ring is to support the edge ring. In Heemstra, the uppermost element is the edge ring, as seen in its Fig. 1, reproduced below. Appeal 2020-000187 Application 13/651,354 5 Figure 1 illustrates a simplified cross-sectional view of a plasma processing chamber. Heemstra ¶ 10. As noted above, Heemstra discloses that the projections of its edge ring “serve to maintain the position of the wafer.” Id. ¶ 31. The claims require the projections be “configured to” support an edge ring atop of the protrusions. “Configured to” is normally construed more narrowly than “capable of and, generally, is equivalent to “made to” or “designed to.” See e.g. In re Giannelli, 739, F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Although we appreciate the Examiner’s position that Heemstra’s structural similarities would “permit the apparatus to support an ‘edge ring’ workpiece,” the Examiner has not directed us to any disclosure that Heemstra’s edge ring protrusions are configured to support an [edge] ring atop of the protrusions, nor do we discern any such disclosure in Appeal 2020-000187 Application 13/651,354 6 Heemstra. Ans. 14. The mere fact that Heemstra’s projections might be capable of supporting an edge ring, in a hypothetical situation where someone decided to place an edge ring thereupon, is not sufficient to satisfy the limitation in claims 1, 21, and 26 of projections configured to support an edge ring atop of the protrusions. We decline to rely on such hypotheticals to meet this claim limitation. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 21, and 26 as unpatentable over Heemstra. Claims 2, 4–7, 22–25, and 27–30 depend from claim 1, clam 21, or claim 26. We likewise do not sustain the rejection of the dependent claims for the same reasons. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection is reversed. More specifically, DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4–7, 21–30 103(a) Heemstra 1, 2, 4–7, 21–30 REVERSED