Ex Parte Pamarthy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2012

11381523 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/381,523 05/03/2006 Sharma Pamarthy APPM/010536/ETCH 4493
44257 7590 12/18/2012
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX
3040 POST OAK BOULEVARD, SUITE 1500
HOUSTON, TX 77056
EXAMINER
CHANDRA, SATISH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2012 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 SHARMA PAMARTHY, HUUTRI DAO, XIAOPING ZHOU,
KELLY A. MCDONOUGH, JIVKO DINEV, FARID ABOOAMERI,
DAVID E. GUTIERREZ, JIM ZHONGYI HE, ROBERT S. CLARK,
DENNIS M. KOOSAU, JEFFREY WILLIAM DIETZ,
DECLAN SCANLAN, SUBHASH DESHMUKH, JOHN P. HOLLAND,
and ALEXANDER PATERSON
__________

Appeal 2011-011675
Application 11/381,523
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, MARK NAGUMO, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-011675
Application 11/381,523

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1-16, and 18-23. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appellants’ invention is directed to a vacuum processing chamber for
etching high aspect ratio features in semiconductor substrates having a
showerhead assembly that includes, most importantly for this appeal, a plug
208 with passages 260 extending through the plug that are aligned with
passages 262 in gas distribution plate 210 (Spec. paras. [0001], [0005],
[0038]-[0039]; Figs. 2 and 3).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A processing chamber comprising:
a chamber body assembly having an interior volume;
a showerhead assembly coupled to a ceiling of the
chamber body and having at least two fluidly isolated plenums
formed therein, a region transmissive to an optical metrology
signal defined through a ceramic plug, a first plurality of gas
passages formed through the showerhead assembly fluidly
coupling a first plenum of the at least two fluidly isolated
plenums to the interior volume of the chamber body, wherein
the first gas passages are distributed at a plurality radial
distances from a center of the showerhead assembly, and a
second plurality of gas passages formed through the
showerhead assembly fluidly coupling a second plenum of the
at least two fluidly isolated plenums to the interior volume of
the chamber body, wherein the second gas passages are
distributed at a plurality radial distances from the center of the
showerhead assembly, wherein the showerhead assembly
further includes a gas distribution plate facing the substrate
support assembly fabricated from bulk Yttrium, the gas
distribution plate having a plurality of apertures aligned with a
plurality of apertures formed in the ceramic plug; and
Appeal 2011-011675
Application 11/381,523

3
a substrate support assembly disposed in the chamber
body.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
1. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Masuda (US 6,755,932 B2 issued
June 29, 2004) in view of Moslehi (US 6,209,480 B1 issued Apr. 3,
2001), Sun (US 2005/0056218 A1 published Mar. 17, 2005) and
Nishimoto (US 7,163,585 B2 issued Jan. 16, 2007).
2. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Masuda in view of
Moslehi, Sun ‘218, Nishimoto and Holland (US 2006/0076109 A1
published Apr. 13, 2006).
3. Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Masuda in view of Moslehi, Sun ‘218, Nishimoto,
Hanawa (US 2004/0027781 A1 published Feb. 12, 2004), and
Han ‘545 (US 2004/0181545 A1 published Sept. 30, 2004).
4. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Masuda in view of Moslehi, Sun ‘218, Nishimoto, Hanawa, Han
and Sun ‘684 (US 2005/0016684 A1 published Jan. 27, 2005).
5. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Masuda in view of Moslehi, Sun ‘218, Nishimoto, and Brown
(US 2006/0073690 A1 published Apr. 6, 2006).
6. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Masuda in view of Moslehi, Sun ‘218, Nishimoto, Brown and
Gupta (US 5,427,621 issued June 27, 1995).
Appeal 2011-011675
Application 11/381,523

4
7. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Masuda in view of Moslehi, Sun ‘218, Nishimoto, and Chang
(US 2005/0271814 A1 published Dec. 8, 2005).
8. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Masuda in view of Moslehi, Sun ‘218, Nishimoto,
Chang and Subramony (US 6,713,127 B2 issued Mar. 30, 2004).
9. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Masuda in view of Moslehi, Sun ‘218, Nishimoto, Chang,
Subramony, and Sun ‘218.
10. Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Masuda in view of Moslehi, Nishimoto, Holland,
Brown and Chang.
11. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Masuda in view of Moslehi, Nishimoto, Holland, Brown, Chang,
and Han ‘929 (US 6,942,929 B2 issued Sept. 13, 2005).
12. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Masuda in view of Moslehi, Nishimoto, Holland, Brown, Chang,
Han ‘929, and Sun ‘684.
13. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Masuda in view of Moslehi, Nishimoto, Holland, Brown, Chang,
and Subramony.
14. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Masuda in view of Moslehi, Nishimoto, Holland, Brown and
Sun ‘218.
15. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Masuda in view of Moslehi, Nishimoto, Holland and Brown.
Appeal 2011-011675
Application 11/381,523

5
16. Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Masuda in view of Moslehi, Nishimoto, Holland,
Brown and Sun ‘218.
17. Claims 1-16, and 18-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable
over claims 1-7, and 9-13 of copending application 11/421,208.

With regard to rejections (1) to (16), Appellants argue limitations
common to the subject matter of independent claims 1, 14 and 21 only.
(App. Br. 13-28). We select claim 1 as representative.

REJECTIONS (1)-(16): CLAIM 1

ISSUE
Did the Examiner reversibly err in failing to establish that Masuda’s solid
quartz rod 141 is equivalent to Nishimoto’s plug 18 with through-holes such
that it would have been obvious to modify Masuda’s quartz rod to have
Nishimoto’s plug with holes through it as required by claim 1? We decide
this issue in the affirmative.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSES
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion based
upon Nishimoto’s teaching that solid window deposition shields 18’ and
window deposition shields 18 with through passages are equivalent is
misplaced (App. Br. 14). Appellants contend that Nishimoto teaches that
solid window deposition shield 18’ is used when optical access is not
Appeal 2011-011675
Application 11/381,523

6
required whereas the window deposition shield 18 with through passages is
used when optical access is required, which shows that the two embodiments
are not equivalents. Id. Appellants argue that the Examiner has not shown
that Nishimoto’s solid window deposition shield 18’ is equivalent to
Masuda’s solid optical transmitter 141. Id. Appellants contend that there is
no showing by the Examiner that Nishimoto’s window deposition shield and
Masuda’s optical transmitter are equivalent structures. Id.
The Examiner’s rejection may be found on pages 4-9 of the Answer.
The Examiner finds that Masuda, Moslehi and Sun ‘218 do not disclose the
ceramic plug having a plurality of apertures aligned with the plurality of
apertures in the gas distribution plate (Ans. 7). The Examiner finds that
Nishimoto teaches a first embodiment that uses a window deposition shield
having holes extending through the shield and a second embodiment where
the window deposition shield does not contain optical through-holes when
optical access is not required for a specific process (id.). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the ceramic
plug/transmitter of Masuda, Moslehi and Sun ‘218 with the teachings of
Nishimoto “to provide an alternate and equivalent optical plug for the
passage of light in their apparatus as taught by Nishimoto.” (Id. at 8).
The Examiner relies upon a finding that Nishimoto discloses an
equivalency between a window deposition shield with no through passages
and a window deposition shield with through passages as the basis for
modifying Masuda’s solid quartz rod to having through passages. However,
Nishimoto’s window deposition shield with no through passages is not an
equivalent structure to Nishimoto’s window deposition shield with through
passages. As properly argued by Appellants, Nishimoto’s deposition shield
Appeal 2011-011675
Application 11/381,523

7
with no passages is used to plug the hole when in the chamber when no
optical access is required which performs a different function than
Nishimoto’s deposition shield with through passages that provides optical
access. In other words, Nishimoto does not establish functional equivalency
between window deposition shields with and without through holes.
We understand Appellants’ argument to be that since the Examiner
has not established functional equivalency between Nishimoto’s deposition
shields with and without through passages, the Examiner’s reliance on this
faulty finding to conclude that modifying Masuda’s solid optical transmitter
would have been obvious is flawed. We agree.
The Examiner has not established any functional equivalency between
Masuda’s solid optical transmitter and Nishimoto’s deposition shield having
through holes. The Examiner’s reliance on the alleged equivalency of
Nishimoto’s deposition shields with and without through holes as providing
an indirect showing that Masuda’s optical transmitter is equivalent to
Nishimoto’s deposition shield with through holes is not supported by the art
as noted above.
The Examiner appears to shift positions in the “Response to
Arguments” section of the Answer by focusing more on Nishimoto’s
deposition shield with through holes as the basis for the modification of
Masuda’s quartz optical transmitter (see e.g., Ans. 45-46). Besides this
change in position being late to the proceedings, the Examiner does not
explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have made such a
modification except by relying on the same flawed equivalency rationale
advanced in the original statement of the rejection. (Ans. 45).
Appeal 2011-011675
Application 11/381,523

8
On this record, the Examiner has not provided a credible reason why
one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Masuda’s optical
transmitter to have Nishimoto’s through holes. The Examiner has not
dispensed with the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
We reverse all the Examiner’s rejections under § 103.

REJECTION (17): Provisional Obviousness-type Double Patenting over
Copending Application 11/421,208

As all of the prior art rejections have been reversed and the present
application is senior to application 11/421,208, it would be premature for the
Board to address this provisional obviousness-type double patenting
rejection. Ex parte Moncla, 95 USPQ2d 1884, 1885 (BPAI 2010). See, Ex
parte Jerg, Appeal No. 2011-000044 (BPAI 2012) (informative status). See
also, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 804(B)(1) (Rev. 8,
July 2010). Accordingly, we do not reach rejection (17) under the present
circumstances.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.

ORDER
REVERSED

bar