Ex Parte Kurita et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 25, 2016

13349307 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/349,307 01112/2012 Shinichi Kurita
44257 7590 03/29/2016
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP- - Applied Materials
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
012279 7803
Cl/DISPLAY/AHRDWR
EXAMINER
KITT, STEPHEN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1717
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2016 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
Exparte SHINICHI KURITA, TAKAYUKI MATSUMOTO,
ROBIN L. TINER, JOHN M. WHITE, and SUHAIL ANWAR
Appeal2014-006641
Application 13/349,307 1
Technology Center 1700
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, and N.
WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal involves claims directed to a processing chamber with an
integrated closure member. Appellants appeal from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-5 and 12-15 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and
as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134. The Examiner's rejections are reversed.
1 "The '307 application."
Appeal2014-006641
Application 13/349,307
STATEMENT OF CASE
Claims 1-5 and 12-15 stand finally rejected by the Examiner as
follows:
Claims 1-5, 12, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA) as
anticipated by Kurita (U.S. Pat. No. 7,086,638 B2, issued Aug. 8, 2006) or
Lee (U.S. Pat. No. 7,469,715 B2, issued Dec. 30, 2008).
Claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA) as obvious in
view of Kurita or Lee.
Claims 1 and 13 are representative and read as follows:
1. A processing chamber, comprising:
a chamber body having a bottom, a first wall, and a second wall, the
second wall having a rear plate and a front plate, wherein facing surfaces
of the rear plate and the front plate define an enclosure there between,
wherein facing surfaces of the first wall and the front plate define a
processing volume therebetween, wherein the processing volume extends
to the surface of the front plate facing the rear plate, the front plate
having a first opening defined between the surface of the front plate
facing the rear plate and the surface facing the first wall, the opening
connecting the enclosure to the processing volume, a second opening
extending through the rear plate from the enclosure, wherein the first and
second opening form a substrate transfer opening through the second
wall, and wherein a closure member is integrated into the chamber body
and disposed in the enclosure between the front plate and the rear plate of
the second wall, and wherein the closure member is configured to contact
the surface of the front plate facing the rear plate and seal the first
opening to isolate the enclosure from the processing volume; and
a deployment mechanism configured to move the closure member with
respect to the first opening.
13. The processing chamber of claim 12, wherein the distance between
the interior chamber surface of the first plate and the closure member is
about 10 cm or less.
2
Appeal2014-006641
Application 13/349,307
ANTICIPATION REJECTIONS
Claim 1 is directed to a processing chamber comprising a "chamber
body" and "a closure member ... integrated into the chamber body." The
chamber body has "a bottom, a first wall, and a second wall, the second wall
having a rear plate and a front plate." "[F]acing surfaces of the first wall and
the front plate define a processing volume therebetween, wherein the
processing volume extends to the surface of the front plate facing the rear
plate." The closure member, which is integrated into the chamber body, is
"disposed in the enclosure between the front plate and the rear plate of the
second wall." The chamber body has an opening to move substrates in and
out from it. The closure member is used to close this opening and seal the
chamber shut. The issue in the anticipation rejections involves the
placement of the closure member with respect to the chamber body walls.
To illustrate the structures recited in claim 1, Fig. 3A of the '307
application is reproduced below. For clarity, the figure has been annotated
with the specific structures recited in claim 1.
3
Appeal2014-006641
Application 13/349,307
k;;::: .. '"''"·-···:q····,--- ---·- LS::'-~-,-ili.E" . , l*--- '"
~<'~,,.::.~t:l.I ''·~~. .C~'- ;~~;:::~:n~1:371 ... ; ..... ", ..
y;9 , I ,~UM!" I 1"~' I \""'" ... > .................. 1 ... ~ , .. (\,_~ ~
>.""""""""""""~~ ~ -------------------·-····' -.-J~·-~:~:~>f~' rn:::·n:\.b~~f .~6}
FtG. 3A
Fig. 3A shows an embodiment of the chamber body. There is a first
wall 302 (left) and a second wall 303 (right) having a rear plate 379 and a
front plate 381. A processing volume 306 is between the first front wall 302
and the front plate 381. A shaded closure member 363 (shading not in
original) is shown as being between the front plate 381 and rear plate 379 of
the second wall 303. Element 308 is an opening in the chamber which is
sealed by closure member 3 63.
Claim 1-5, 12, and 15 stand rejected as anticipated by Kurita and Lee.
Answer 3, 5. The rejections are based on the same disclosure in each
publication. Consequently, we need only consider Kurita. The Examiner
found that Kurita describes a chamber body that meets all the claimed
limitations. Fig. IA of Kurita, which shows the structures cited by the
4
Appeal2014-006641
Application 13/349,307
Examiner, is reproduced below. For clarity, the figure has been annotated
with the names of the specific structures.
109-
fit'>t wall
u--111
Fig. IA shows a processing chamber P (shown in phantom). Kurita,
col. 2, 11. 52-52. A first wall is on the right and a second wall (in phantom)
is on the left. The second wall has a rear plate (at 105) and a front plate 121.
Id. at col. 4, 11. 3--4. An opening into the chamber is shown at 117. The
opening 117 is sealed shut by a closure member 103. Area 102 is an
elongated tunnel leading from the enclosure of the chamber isolation valve
101 into the chamber P. The processing volume is between the first wall and
the phantom wall of the chamber P.
5
Appeal2014-006641
Application 13/349,307
The Examiner identified the boxed region comprising the front plate
121 and chamber wall (in phantom) as the front plate of rejected claim 1.
Answer 8. Based on this finding, the Examiner determined the processing
volume of chamber P was between the first wall and front plate as required
by claim 1. Id. at 7. The Examiner also interpreted "a closure member is
integrated into the chamber body" as meaning "connected in any way to the
processing chamber ... for instance by a screw." Id.
The Examiner's interpretation of "a closure member is integrated into
the chamber body" is unreasonably broad in light of the written description
of the '307 application. "[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed
claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage
as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into
account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may
be afforded by the written description contained in applicant's
specification." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In this
case, the '307 application specifically distinguishes the type of prior art
embodied in Kurita by utilizing the claimed integrated closure member.
The '307 application contains Fig. 2A which is labeled as prior art.
Fig. 2A is reproduced below.
6
Appeal2014-006641
Application 13/349,307
206
203
FIG.2A
(PRIOR ART)
Fig. 2A shows a chamber isolation valve 160 including a closure
member 263 (right). '307 Application i-f 30. A front plate, which is also part
of isolation valve 160, is shown at 281 (id. at i-f 33), while a chamber wall is
shown as 203 (id. at il 28). The closure member 263 seals opening 275.
Like Kurita (tunnel 102), there is an elongated tunnel 209 at this opening
formed from the wall of the chamber and the wall of the chamber isolation
valve. Unlike the apparatus of claim 1 ("the processing volume extends to
the surface of the front plate facing the rear plate"), the processing volume
206 of Fig. 2A, which is distinct from elongated tunnel 209, is between wall
202 and wall 203, the same configuration shown in Fig. IA of Kurita. Also
like Kurita, the '307 application describes the isolation valve 160 in the prior
art as being "placed against the processing chamber 150, such that a seal is
formed between the valve housing 265 and the processing chamber 160, at
the opening 208 to be sealed." Id. at i-f 30.
7
Appeal2014-006641
Application 13/349,307
The wording of the '307 application and Kurita with respect to the
placement of the isolation valve containing the closure member is almost
identical. Kurita, col. 2, 11. 58---65:
To permit the chamber isolation valve 101 to be used in
conjunction with an opening of a processing chamber, the valve
housing 105 of the chamber isolation valve 101 may be placed
against the processing chamber, e.g. such that a seal (not
shown) is formed between the valve housing 105 and the
processing chamber around the processing chamber opening to
be sealed.
The '307 application distinguishes the Fig. 2A prior art in the
following way (emphasis added):
[0042] Similar to the embodiment shown in Figure 2A, the
process volume 306 is accessed through an opening 308 in the
chamber wall 303 such that the substrate 102 may be
transferred into and out of the chamber 350. However, contrary
to prior configurations, the chamber wall 303 may be
configured to integrally allow access to the opening 308 when a
substrate is being transferred and to seal the opening 308 when
a substrate is not being transferred.
Chamber wall 303 comprises the front and rear plates, unlike the
configuration shown in Fig. 2A of the '307 application and Fig. IA of
Kurita.
Referring to Figures 3A and 3B, the chamber wall 303 may
comprise a front plate 381 and a rear plate 379 between which
at least a portion of a closure member 363 may be movably
disposed for sealing the chamber opening 308. The closure
member 363 may include a door 367 for sealing the chamber
opening 308.
'307 application i-f 43.
In other words, the '307 application specifically teaches that the
second wall 303 (containing the front and rear plates) is integral to the
8
Appeal2014-006641
Application I3/349,307
chamber body, and contains the closure member structure, in contrast to the
prior art shown in Fig. 2A, and Fig. IA of Kurita, where the closure member
structure is placed against the chamber wall.
The '307 application identifies a "problem" with prior art Fig. 2A
which is said to be improved upon by the Fig. 3A embodiment. Id. at i-fi-137,
38. Specifically, the '307 application teaches that the prior art has an
elongated tunnel 209 which leads to excess material deposition. Id. at i137.
Fig. IA of Kurita, reproduced above, also has this elongated tunnel (102).
The tunnel is a consequence of placing the isolation valve, containing the
closure member against the wall of the chamber. The '307 application
eliminates the tunnel by making the isolation valve with closure member
integral to the chamber. The '307 application teaches:
[0038] In contrast, embodiments of the present invention
significantly improve on the aforementioned configuration by
shortening the distance to the RF return path of the isolation
valve I 60 through the elimination of the elongated tunnel 209
at opening 208. Figure 3A shows one embodiment of the
present invention represented by a schematic cross-section of a
processing chamber 350 generating plasma 301.
In our opinion, it would be unreasonable to read claim I on an
embodiment specifically distinguished and disparaged in the '307
application. See In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d I I42, I I49,
where the Board's construction of the claim to include external wires and
cables was reversed when "the specification contains only disparaging
remarks with respect to the external cables and wires of the prior-art
sensors.")
As discussed above, claim I contains express language which
distinguishes Kurita: "facing surfaces of the first wall and the front plate
9
Appeal2014-006641
Application 13/349,307
define a processing volume therebetween" and "a closure member is
integrated into the chamber body." It is unreasonable to construe "front
plate" to include the wall of the chamber body as the Examiner did because
the '307 application specifically identifies an embodiment with the chamber
wall and front plate as being problematic because of the presence of an
elongated tunnel. '307 application i-fi-137, 38. The '307 application
improves upon this prior art configuration by integrating the closure member
into the chamber body and thus eliminating the elongated tunnel. Id. at i-fi-1
42, 43. Consequently, it is unreasonable to interpret "integrated" to include
placing the closure member against the processing chamber body wall as
done in Kurita.
The anticipation rejection over Kurita is reversed. The anticipation
rejection over Lee is reversed for the same reason.
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected as obvious in view of Kurita or Lee.
Claim 13, depends from claim 1 through a string of dependent claims, and
further recites that "the distance between the interior chamber surface of the
first plate and the closure member is about 10 cm or less." In Fig. 3A of the
'307 application, this distance corresponds to the opening 308 in the front
face plate. In Fig. IA ofKurita, this distance corresponds to the elongated
tunnel 102 made up of the front plate 121 and chamber wall. See also
elongated tunnel 209 of Fig. 2A of the '307 application.
The Examiner found that this "gap distance is a result effective
variable" which would have been obvious to optimize. Answer 6. As
evidence, the Examiner stated:
10
Appeal2014-006641
Application 13/349,307
As seen by the Lee et al. reference, the gap (198a) between the
surface of the first plate and the closure member is an important
variable which can be easily calculated (col. 8 lines 19-57,
figure 6), and therefore it is considered an art recognized result
effective variable and it is obvious to experiment and optimize
that gap distance. (MPEP 2144.05).
Id. at 9.
Gap 198a shown in Fig. 6 of Lee is not "the distance between the
interior chamber surface of the first plate and the closure member," but
rather is a distance inside the enclosure 103 which holds the closure
member. The Examiner's reasoning for performing the optimization is not
supported by a preponderance of the evidence of record. The obviousness
rejections are reversed.
REVERSED
11