Ex Parte Lai et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 13, 201712780531 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation