Ex Parte Godyak et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 15, 201713388309 (P.T.A.B. May. 15, 2017) 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. AGX-190-PCT-US 3491 EXAMINER ALEJANDRO MULERO, LUZ L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1716 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 13/388,309 02/01/2012 22827 7590 05/15/2017 DORITY & MANNING, P.A. POST OFFICE BOX 1449 GREENVILLE, SC 29602-1449 Valery A. Godyak 05/15/2017 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte VALERY A. GOD YAK, CHARLES CRAPUCHETTES, and VLADIMIR NAGORNY1 Appeal 2017-002663 Application 13/388,309 Technology Center 1700 Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 5, 7—19, and 34. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM. 1 Mattson Technology, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2017-002663 Application 13/388,309 Appellants claim an apparatus for processing a substrate in a plasma comprising a processing chamber having dielectric windows 8020 as a portion of a processing chamber wall with externally-disposed inductive coupling elements 8070 associated with the dielectric windows. Each inductive coupling element comprises a U-shaped magnetic flux concentrator 8030 having a first pole area 8035 and a second pole area 8037, and conductive shields 8050 associated with the inductive coupling elements such that each inductive coupling element includes a conductive shield disposed at least partially around the U-shaped magnetic flux concentrator. The first and second pole areas are separated by a gap distance 8039, the first and second pole areas being located a distance from the interior of the processing chamber that is less than about one-fourth of the gap distance (independent claim 1, Fig. 3 A; see also independent claim 34). A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below. 1. An apparatus for processing a substrate in a plasma, comprising: a processing chamber having an interior space operable to confine a process gas; a substrate holder in the interior of the processing chamber operable to hold the substrate; a plurality of dielectric windows constituting a portion of a wall of said processing chamber, each dielectric window having a width that is smaller than a span of the processing chamber; and an inductive applicator disposed external to the processing chamber, said inductive applicator comprising a plurality of inductive coupling elements, each of the plurality of inductive coupling elements being associated with one of the plurality of dielectric windows, each said inductive coupling element comprising a flat coil portion and a U-shaped magnetic flux concentrator of magnetically permeable material, said U- 2 Appeal 2017-002663 Application 13/388,309 shaped magnetic flux concentrator having a first pole area and a second pole area, said first pole area and said second pole area generally facing said dielectric window associated with the inductive coupling element; and a plurality of conductive shields, each conductive shield associated with one of the plurality of inductive coupling elements such that each said inductive coupling element includes one of the plurality of conductive shields disposed at least partially around the U-shaped magnetic flux concentrator associated with the inductive coupling element; wherein when each said inductive coupling element is energized, a radioffequency magnetic flux emanates from said magnetic flux concentrator of said inductive coupling element directionally into the interior of said processing chamber such that a substantial portion of the magnetic flux emerges from said first pole area through said dielectric window into the interior of said processing chamber and such that a substantial portion of the magnetic flux returns back from the interior of said processing chamber through said dielectric window to said second pole area of said magnetic flux concentrator; wherein said first pole area and said second pole area are separated by a gap distance, said first pole area and said second pole area being located a distance from the interior of said processing chamber that is less than about one- fourth of the gap distance. Appellants present arguments directed to claim 1 (App. Br. 8—13) and rely on these arguments in contesting the rejections of the other claims on appeal {id. at 13—18). Therefore, our disposition of this appeal will focus on claim 1, with which the other appealed claims will stand or fall. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner rejects claim 1 as unpatentable over Godyak (US 2008/0050537 Al, published Feb. 28, 2008) (i.e., the Godyak publication) in view of Chu (US 6,051,073, issued Apr. 18, 2000) and rejects remaining claims 5, 7—19, and 34 over these references alone or combined with additional prior art. 3 Appeal 2017-002663 Application 13/388,309 Under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting, the Examiner rejects claim 1 over claims 1—19 ofU.S. Patent No. 8,920,600 B2 (issued Dec. 30, 2014) (i.e., the Godyak patent) in view of Chu and rejects remaining claims 5, 7—19, and 34 over this combination alone or in conjunction with additional prior art. We will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed below. In the § 103 rejection of claim 1, the Examiner finds that “Godyak shows the invention substantially as claimed” (Final Action 2) including “a U-shaped magnetic flux concentrator 160” (id. at 3). The Examiner additionally finds that (1) “Godyak discloses conductive shield 150 disposed at least partially around the U-shaped magnetic flux concentrator” (id. at 4) and that (2) “Godyak, in for example, [F]ig. 5, shows that the first pole area and the second pole area are located a distance from the interior of the processing chamber (which is also the thickness of the dielectric window of claim 7) that is less than about one-fourth of the gap distance” (id. at 5). Notwithstanding these additional findings, the Examiner alternatively concludes that it would have been obvious to provide Godyak’s apparatus (1) with the claimed conductive shield disposed at least partially around the U-shaped magnetic flux concentrator in view of Chu’s disclosure regarding conductive shield 44 (id. at 4) and (2) with the claimed distance between the pole areas and the processing chamber interior that is less than about one- fourth of the gap distance as a matter of routine optimization (id. at 5). Appellants’ arguments against the § 103 rejection are directed to the above mentioned conductive shield and distance limitations of claim 1 (App. Br. 8-13). 4 Appeal 2017-002663 Application 13/388,309 Regarding the conductive shield limitation, Appellants’ argument concerns only the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion without disputing, or even acknowledging, the Examiner’s finding that Godyak discloses a conductive shield 150 disposed at least partially around the U-shaped magnetic flux concentrator as claimed (see id. at 8—10). For this reason, even if their argument concerning obviousness were persuasive, Appellants fail to establish that the conductive shield limitation renders claim 1 non- obvious over the cited art. In any event, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that “Godyak and Chu merely teach using either a ‘magnetic flux concentrator’ for confinement of the magnetic field lines (see, e.g., Godyak, [0014]) or a ‘ground/shield’ surrounding an antenna (see, e.g., Chu, col. 5, lines 34-35), but not both” (App. Br. 9). As support for this argument, Appellants emphasize that their Specification discloses using both a conductive shield and a magnetic flux concentrator has been found to further focus magnetic flux lines into the processing chamber and that “[njowhere is this advantage recognized in the cited art” (id.). Contrary to Appellants’ apparent belief, claim 1 does not require the recited conductive shield to perform the function of focusing magnetic flux lines into the processing chamber, and the Specification does not limit the conductive shield function to such focusing (i.e., the shield also is disclosed as “useful to reduce and/or eliminate parasitic power loss and/or electromagnetic interference” (Spec. | 84)). With these circumstances in mind, we emphasize that Appellants fail to even assert that, much less explain why, an artisan would not have disposed Chu’s shield/ground 44 around Godyak’s U-shaped magnetic flux concentrator in order to obtain the shielding and/or grounding functions of this shield/ground. 5 Appeal 2017-002663 Application 13/388,309 As for the distance limitation of claim 1, Appellants challenge the Examiner’s finding that Figure 5 of Godyak shows the claimed distance by contending reliance on Figure 5 “is improper . . . [because] [njowhere does Godyak describe that its figures are to scale” (App. Br. 12). Appellants’ contention lacks persuasive merit. Regardless of whether or not drawings are to scale, things clearly shown in the drawings are not to be disregarded. See In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972) (“[when] we said . . . ‘Patent drawings are not working drawings’ [in In re Wilson, 312 F.2d 1449, 1454 (CCPA 1963)]. . ., we did not mean that things patent drawings clearly show are to be disregarded.'1'’). Here, Godyak’s Figure 5 shows with great particularity that the distance from pole areas to processing chamber interior is less than one-fourth the gap distance between the pole areas as required by claim 1. Id. (“Here, Fig. 3 in the Wilson reference focuses on the edge rolls, showing them with great particularity and showing the grooves thereon to have an angularity well within the range recited in appellant’s claims.”). For this reason alone, Appellants fail to establish that the distance limitation renders claim 1 non-obvious over the cited art.2 In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 1, 5, 7—19, and 34. In addition to the arguments discussed previously, Appellants further contest the Examiner’s obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claim 1 by arguing “the Final Office Action has improperly relied upon the 2 In light of this circumstance, we need not resolve the dispute between Appellants and the Examiner concerning whether the distance feature recited in claim 1 would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization. 6 Appeal 2017-002663 Application 13/388,309 disclosure of the application of U.S. Patent No. 8,920,600 to make such a rejection” (App. Br. 16—17). However, Appellants fail to identify the claim feature(s) or application disclosure(s) that are considered to be involved in this asserted impropriety. As a consequence, we perceive no convincing merit in the argument under consideration. We also sustain, therefore, the Examiner’s obviousness-type double patenting rejections of claims 1, 5, 7—19, and 34. The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation