Ex Parte Lai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 13, 2017

12780531 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 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.
12/780,531 05/14/2010 Canfeng Lai 014990/FEP/P31/PJT 1878
44257 7590 01/18/2017
PATTFRSON & SHFRTDAN T T P - - AnnlieH Materials EXAMINER
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
BENNETT, CHARLEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1718
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/18/2017 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 CANFENG LAI, JEFFREY TOBIN, PETER I.
PORSHNEV, and JOSE ANTONIO MARIN
Appeal 2015-001415
Application 12/780,531
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and BRIAN D. RANGE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
SUMMARY
Appellants appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 3—14, and 25—34. We have jurisdiction. 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on January 6, 2017.2 We AFFIRM.
1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Applied Materials,
Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
2 A written transcript of the oral hearing will be entered into the record when
the transcript is made available.
Appeal 2015-001415
Application 12/780,531
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe the invention as relating to a lid assembly for a
chamber for plasma processing of substrates. Spec. Abstract. Claims 8 and
25, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
8. A lid assembly for a plasma chamber, comprising:
a gas distributor;
a support plate disposed around the gas distributor;
a conductive ring disposed around the gas distributor and
coupled to the support plate;
an annular inductive coil disposed in an insulating channel
nested with the conductive ring; and
a field concentrator disposed in the insulating channel
around the inductive coil.
25. A lid assembly for a plasma chamber, comprising:
a conductive plate;
a plurality of conductive coils disposed in the conductive plate,
each conductive coil disposed in an insulating member nested in a
channel of the conductive plate; and
a conduit disposed through a central portion of the conductive
plate and
coupled to a plurality of openings in the conductive plate.
Appeal Br.3 15—16 (Claims App’x).
REFERENCES
On appeal, the Examiner has withdrawn the rejection pursuant to 35
U.S.C. § 112(a). Ans. 11.
The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Hartig et al., (“Hartig”) US 5,683,548 Nov. 4, 1997
3 In this decision, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed December 19,
2013 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed June 2, 2014 (“Appeal Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer mailed September 12, 2014 (“Ans.”), and the Reply
Brief filed November 12, 2014 (“Reply Br.”).
2
Appeal 2015-001415
Application 12/780,531
Tomoyasu
Wickramanayaka
Ni et al, (“Ni”)
US 5,904,780
US 6,225,746
US 6,230,651
May 18, 1999
May 1,2001
May 15,2001
Jul. 10, 2001
Dec. 18,2001
Feb. 28, 2008
Bhardwaj et. al., (“Bhardwaj”) US 6,259,209
Satoyoshi et al., (“Satoyoshi”) US 6,331,754
Godyak US 2008/0050537 Al
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
Rejection 1. Claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
over Bhardwaj in view of Godyak. Ans. 4.
Rejection 2. Claims 8, 9, and 12—14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Godyak in view of Ni and further in view of Bhardwaj.
Id. at 5.
Rejection 3. Claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Godyak in view of Ni and Bhardwaj and further in view
of Wickramanayaka. Id. at 7.
Rejection 4. Claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Satoyoshi in view of Godyak. Id. at 8.
Rejection 5. Claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Satoyoshi in view of Godyak and further in view of Hartig. Id.
Rejection 6. Claims 27—32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Satoyoshi in view of Godyak and Hartig and further in view of
Bhardwaj. Id. at 9.
Rejection 7. Claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Satoyoshi in view of Godyak, Hartig, and Bhardwaj and further in view of
Tomoyasu. Id. at 11.
3
Appeal 2015-001415
Application 12/780,531
The Examiner additionally rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
over Bhardwaj and claims 3—7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Bhardwaj and
Godyak. Ans. 2-4. Appellants request review of only the rejections of
claims 8—14 and 25—34. Appeal Br. 1. It is not the function of this Board to
examine the claims in greater detail than argued by Appellants. In re Baxter
TravenolLabs., 952 F.2d388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
(“It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail
than argued by an appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions over the
prior art.”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We summarily affirm the
rejections of claims 1 and 3—7 because Appellants have failed to explain the
reasons they believe that the rejections are inappropriate.
ANAFYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (“it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to
identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”)). After having
considered the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellants’
contentions, we are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error,
and we affirm the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the
Final Office Action and the Answer and for the reasons further explained
below.
Rejection 1, claim 34. Claim 34 depends from claim 5. Appeal Br.
17 (Claims App’x). Appellants do not contest the rejection of claim 5 and
4
Appeal 2015-001415
Application 12/780,531
present no argument concerning patentability of claim 34. Because
Appellants identify no error with respect to the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 34, we sustain the rejection.
Rejections 2—3, claims 8—14. Appellants argue rejections 2 and 3
together, and present no distinct arguments with respect to claims 9-14. See
Appeal Br. 5—9. Therefore, consistent with the provisions of 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013), we limit our discussion to claim 8, and claims 9—14
stand or fall together with claim 8.
The Examiner finds that Godyak discloses a lid assembly for a plasma
chamber comprising a support plate, a conductive ring coupled to the
support ring, and a field concentrator around the inductive coil. Final Act. 7,
Ans. 5 (providing citations to Godyak). The Examiner finds that Ni
discloses a gas distributor and a plate around the gas distributor and
concludes that it would have been obvious to incorporate the gas distributor
of Ni within the center of the support plate and conductive ring of Godyak to
improve etch uniformity, center to edge profile uniformity, and critical
dimension bias, and/or profile microloading. Final Act. 7, Ans. 5 (providing
citations to Ni). The Examiner also finds that Bhardwaj discloses an annular
inductive coil disposed in an insulating channel nested within a conductive
ring and that it would have been obvious to incorporate the insulating
channel of Bhardwaj. Final Act. 8, Ans. 5 (providing citations to Bhardwaj).
Appellants argue that the Ni and Godyak references do not suggest
that adding the gas distributor of Ni to the apparatus of Godyak would
improve it and that, instead, the two references undermine the Examiner’s
rationale for obviousness. Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 2—3. Appellants’
5
Appeal 2015-001415
Application 12/780,531
argument does not establish harmful Examiner error.4 Godyak teaches that,
rather than the specific feedhole structure of Figure 2 being required, a
variety of different gas distributor configurations could be utilized. Ans. 12;
Godyak || 55—57. For example, Godyak teaches that it could use
“showerhead” feed holes, a plurality of manifolds, and/or holes, slits,
nozzles, and/or other shapes. Godyak || 54—56. Godyak also teaches that
the gas distributor configuration should be adjusted to improve process
uniformity. Id. A person implementing the lid assembly of Godyak would
have thus be motivated to utilize the gas injector of Ni because Ni teaches
that its injector “can improve etch uniformity, center-to-edge profile
uniformity, critical dimension [CD] bias and/or profile microloading.” Ans.
12; Ni 5:6-14.
Implementation of Ni’s injector in Godyak would have been no more
than predictable use of a prior art element according to established function.
KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Both references
recognize that achieving process uniformity as a known problem, and a
preponderance of the evidence supports that a person of ordinary skill would
have considered various gas distributors designed for plasma chambers in
order to find an optimal distributor for a given process. See In re Boesch,
617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) (“[DJiscovery of an optimum value of a
result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of
the art.”).
4 To the extent Appellants raised new arguments concerning the Examiner’s
combining of the Ni or Bhardwaj references for the first time at oral
argument, the arguments will not be considered. 37 C.F.R. § 41.47(e)(1)
(“[AJppellant may only . . . present argument that has been relied upon in the
brief or reply brief. . . .”).
6
Appeal 2015-001415
Application 12/780,531
Moreover, the “gas distributor” of claim 8 is not limited to any
particular type or form of gas distributor. Indeed, the showerhead gas
distributor contemplated by the Specification is also taught by Godyak.
Compare Spec. 115 with Godyak | 55. At oral argument, Appellants agreed
that Godyak discloses a “gas distributor” but disputed that Godyak’s gas
distributors meet the configuration of claim 1. The gas distributors depicted
at the center of Godyak Figure 2, however, are positioned in the center of the
lid assembly. Claim 8 does not forbid additional gas distributors from being
located outside the center. Thus, Godyak teaches the conductive ring
disposed around gas distributors. See Ans. 5 (finding that Godyak teaches
annular inductive coil (180) nested with the conductive ring); Godyak Fig. 2
(depicting gas feed holes—i.e., gas distributors—located within ring 180).
Therefore, even if the Examiner’s stated rationale for combining Ni and
Godyak were in error, the error is harmless because the Examiner’s findings
regarding Ni were unnecessary for the Examiner to reach an ultimate
conclusion of obviousness.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner errs by combining the
insulating channels of Bhardwaj with Godyak because Godyak already
couples RF power to the interior of the chamber without use of channels and
already shields its coils from the process environment. Appeal Br. 7—8. The
Examiner, however, also finds that Bhardwaj’s insulating channels serve to
conform the plasma to the chamber and electrically insulate the coils from
the plasma. Ans. 6; see also Bhardwaj 1:38—60 (explaining advantages of
Bhardwaj configuration including ability to vary antennae power); Godyak
140 (encouraging configuration where coils can be selectively engaged as
taught by Bhardwaj). Appellants do not persuasively dispute that
7
Appeal 2015-001415
Application 12/780,531
Bhardwaj’s design would provide the same benefit if implemented in
Godyak. Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports that use of
Bhardwaj’s insulating channel configuration in Godyak would be no more
than predictable use of prior art elements according to established function.
KSR Int’l. Co., 550 U.S. at 416 (“when a patent claims a structure already
known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element
for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a
predictable result”) (citation omitted). One of skill in the art would have
reasonably expected that Bhardwaj’s design could have been substituted for
that of Godyak with predictable results, and this supports the Examiner’s
obviousness conclusion. Id. at 421; see also, e.g., Agrizap, Inc. v.
Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (reversing denial
of judgment as matter of law as to obviousness where only difference
between primary reference and claim was use of resistive switch rather than
mechanical switch where patents directed to solving same problem taught
use of resistive switch); Ex Parte Smith, 83 U.S.P.Q.2d 1509 (P.T.O. June
25, 2007) (precedential) (finding claim obvious where references together
“teach that a pocket can [be] made by either method and yield a predictable
result”).
Because Appellants do not establish reversible error, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 8—14.
Rejections 4—7, claims 25—33. Appellants argue rejections 4, 5, 6, and
7 together and present no distinct arguments with respect to dependent
claims 26—33. See Appeal Br. 5—9. Therefore, consistent with the
provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013), we limit our discussion to
claim 25, and claims 26—33 stand or fall together with claim 25.
8
Appeal 2015-001415
Application 12/780,531
The Examiner finds that Satoyoshi discloses a lid assembly for a
plasma chamber comprising a conductive plate, a conductive coil disposed
in insulating members nested in a channel of the conductive plate, and a
conduit in the central portion of the conductive plate. Ans. 8 (providing
citations to Satoyoshi). The Examiner that Godyak discloses a plurality of
coils and concludes that it would have been obvious to incorporate the
plurality of coils taught by Godyak in the apparatus of Satoyoshi in order to
improve spatial uniformity in the plasma chamber. Id. (citing Godyak). A
preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s findings and
conclusion.
Appellants argue that Satoyoshi does not teach a conductive plate and
that element 16 as depicted in Figure 2 of Satoyoshi is in the shape as a
cross. Appeal Br. 9—10. The Examiner, however, finds that Satoyoshi’s
elements 16 and 7 together form the conductive plate along with along with
insulating members 3/3 s nested in a channel of the conductive plate. Ans.
13. The Specification provides no reason to define “conductive plate” so
narrowly that it would exclude the plate depicted by Satoyoshi Figure 2. For
example, contrary to Appellants’ argument at pages 4—5 of the Reply Brief,
nothing about claim 25’s recitation of “conductive plate” requires that all of
a plate be conductive or requires that different conductive parts of the plate
all touch. To the contrary, claim 25 requires conductive plate have channels
that nest insulating members—precisely the configuration met by
Satoyoshi’s Figure 2. See also Spec. Abstract (“The inductive coil is
substantially coplanar with the conductive plate, and insulated therefrom by
an insulator that fits within a channel formed in the conductive plate, or
nests within the conductive rings.”).
9
Appeal 2015-001415
Application 12/780,531
Appellants also argue that it would not have been obvious to combine
“any parts from Satoyoshi into the apparatus of Godyak because the two are
not combinable.” Appeal Br. 11. The Examiner, however, only combines
the teachings of Satoyoshi with Godyak’s teaching that there may be more
than one conductive coil. Ans. 13. We discern no err in combining this
teaching of Godyak with Satoyoshi because, as the Examiner finds,
Satoyoshi already suggests multiple coils. Id. (citing Satoyoshi 14:64—67
and 15:1—5). Bodily incorporation of one reference into the other is not
required for obviousness. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)
(“To justify combining reference teachings in support of a rejection it is not
necessary that a device shown in one reference can be physically inserted
into the device shown in the other.”).
Because Appellants do not establish reversible error, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 25—33.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
3—14, and 25—34.
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
10