Ex Parte Godyak et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 15, 2017

13388309 (P.T.A.B. May. 15, 2017)

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