Ex Parte Ranish et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 15, 2017

13864849 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 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.
13/864,849 04/17/2013 Joseph M. RANISH 016896USA/FEP/EPI/PJT 9963
44257 7590 08/17/2017
PATTFRSON & SHFRTDAN T T P - - AnnlieH Materials EXAMINER
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
ZERVIGON, RUDY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/17/2017 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 JOSEPH M. RANISH,1
Paul Brillhart, Jose Antonio Marin, Satheesh Kuppurao,
Balasubramanian Ramachandran, Swaminathan T. Srinivasan,
and Mehmet Tugral Samir
Appeal 2017-000070
Application 13/864,849
Technology Center 1700
Before MARKNAGUMO, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Joseph M. Ranish, Paul Brillhart, Jose Antonio Marin, Satheesh
Kuppurao, Balasubramanian Ramachandran, Swaminathan T. Srinivasan,
and Mehmet Tugrul Samir (“Ranish”) timely appeal under
1 The real party in interest is identified as Applied Materials, Inc. (Appeal
Brief, filed23 May2016 (“Br”), 3.)
Appeal 2017-000070
Application 13/864,849
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection2 of all pending claims 1—3, 5,
and 15—19. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6. We reverse.
OPINION
A. Introduction3
The subject matter on appeal relates to a processing apparatus in
which material is deposited in a lateral flow chamber by flowing a process
gas parallel to the surface of a substrate. (Spec. 2 [0003].) The process gas
is decomposed, e.g., thermally, and the products are deposited on the
surface. (Id.) The Specification teaches that it is desirable to prevent
“backside deposition” of the process gas on surfaces of the reactor below the
substrate support, and that this is accomplished in the prior art by
introducing a purge gas beneath the substrate support. (Id. at [0004].) The
purge gas flows up around the substrate support and prevents reactive gas
from entering the lower portion of the chamber. (Id. at 5 [0004].) However,
the Specification reveals, the upward flow of the purge gas creates
turbulence in the laterally flowing process gas, which leads to uneven
deposition of material on the surface. (Id. at [0005].)
2 Office Action mailed 23 November 2015 (“Final Rejection”; cited as
“FR”).
3 Application 13/864,849, Process chamber having separate process gas
and purge gas regions, filed 17 April 2013, claiming the benefit of a
provisional application filed 25 April 2012. We refer to the
“’849 Specification,” which we cite as “Spec.”
2
Appeal 2017-000070
Application 13/864,849
These problems are avoided, according to the ’849 Specification, by
providing a process chamber 1004 as shown in Figure 1, reproduced below.
{Figure 1 is shown below}
100
{Figure 1 shows a lateral flow processing chamber 100 in cross section}
Processing chamber 100 comprises a lower dome 104, a chamber body 101
coupled to lower dome 104, and an upper dome 102 coupled to chamber
body 101. (Spec. 6 [0015].) Substrate support 106 can be positioned on
pins 110 to load and unload substrates from the chamber before and after
processing. For processing, substrate support 106 can be raised to
4 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, labels to elements are presented in
bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
3
Appeal 2017-000070
Application 13/864,849
processing position 120. (Id.) Purge gas from supply 122 is introduced via
purge gas inlet 124, positioned below substrate 106 when the substrate
support is in the processing position, so the purge gas flows laterally beneath
the substrate support 106 and is exhausted via purge gas outlet 128, assisted
by exhaust pump 130. (Id. at 7 [0017].) Processing gas from supply 132 is
introduced via processing gas inlet 134, whence it flows laterally
(arrow 136) across substrate 108 and exits the processing chamber via
processing gas outlet 138, assisted by vacuum pump 140. (Id. at 7 [0018].)
In the words of the Specification, “[t]he utilization of separate process
gas and purge gas regions prevents backside deposition while increasing the
uniformity of deposition on the substrate.” (Id. at 9 [0022].)
Independent claim 15 illustrates the disputed limitations and reads:
An apparatus, comprising:
a chamber body;
a substrate support disposed within the chamber body,
the substrate support vertically actuatable between a
loading position and a processing position;
a process gas inlet and a process gas outlet
disposed laterally above the substrate support when the
substrate support is in the processing position, wherein
the process gas inlet and the process gas outlet are
disposed in a first plane and
are adapted to direct a process gas laterally over the
surface of a substrate disposed on the substrate
support; and
a purge gas inlet and a purge gas outlet
disposed below the substrate support when the
substrate support is in the processing position, wherein
the purge gas inlet and the purge gas outlet are
disposed in a second plane and
4
Appeal 2017-000070
Application 13/864,849
are adapted to direct a purge gas laterally below the
plane of the substrate,
wherein the first plane is parallel to the second plane,
and wherein the process gas inlet and the purge gas
inlet are located on a side of the chamber body opposite
of the process gas outlet and the purge gas outlet.
(Claims App., Br. 12—13; some indentation, paragraphing, and emphasis
added.)
Remaining independent claim 1 recites a few more details about the
overall structure of the chamber, and recites process and purge gas inlets and
outlets “for flowing a process [purge] gas laterally above [below] the
substrate support.” (Claims App., Br. 11.)
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection5,6:
A. Claims 1, 3, 5, 15, and 17 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of
Iwamoto,5 6 7 Adams,8 and Soman.9
5 Examiner’s Answer mailed 25 July 2016 (“Ans.”).
6 Because this application was filed before the 16 March 2013, effective
date of the America Invents Act, we refer to the pre-AIA version of the
statute.
7 Kunihiko Iwamoto et al., Film formation apparatus, U.S. Patent
No. 7,387,686 B2 (2008).
8 David V. Adams and Roger N. Anderson, Wafer reactor vessel window
with pressure-thermal compensation, U.S. Patent No. 5,085,887 (1992).
[assigned to Applied Materials, Inc.]
9 Ravindra Soman and Anand Murthy, Method for fabricating a bipolar
transistor base, U.S. Patent No. 6,927,140 B2 (2005).
5
Appeal 2017-000070
Application 13/864,849
A2. Claims 2 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Iwamoto, Adams, Soman,
and Ishizaka.10
A3. Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Iwamoto, Adams, and
Soman.
B. Discussion
The Board’s findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by
a preponderance of the evidence of record.
The Examiner finds that Iwamoto describes a process chamber having
most of the features recited in claim 1, but that Iwamoto does not teach “the
purge gas inlet (‘high-flow purge gas’ inlet. . .) and the purge gas outlet
(‘Exhausted H20, Material’ . . .) are disposed in a second plane,” wherein
“the first plane (plane common to both inlet and outlet of ‘annealing gas’;
Figure 10) is parallel to the second plane as amended.”* 11 (FR, para,
bridging 6—7 (emphasis omitted).) These features are illustrated in the
Examiner’s annotated version of Iwamoto Figure 10,12 reproduced on the
following page.
10 Tadahiro Ishizaka, Plasma enhanced atomic layer deposition system
having reduced contamination, U.S. Patent No. 7,422,636 B2 (2008).
11 The apparently contradictory finding expressed at FR 5, lines 12—16, lacks
substantial credible evidentiary support in Iwamoto.
12 Attached to the Office Action mailed 21 May 2015 and cited throughout
the Final Rejection and the Examiner’s Answer.
6
Appeal 2017-000070
Application 13/864,849
{Iwamoto Figure 10 (annotated) is shown below}
264 PARTITION PLATE
f
REACTIVE GAS—
SOUSK^AS^,
HISi-fLCTWfteE 3ASe}
JEtfH C00UH6) ^
288 STAGE
216 DEPOSITION-F
CHWBEf?
i Lower .Dome
...• • 214 SUPPORT INS UNIT ^ ?08 HEATER
212 MOVING »E0HAR1SJ/I
202 RTPUNIT
204 QUARTZ SINOOW
, __ ^ 266
%Tg\6(HAiiSTES
• ^ANNEALING GAS
206
St WAFER \
250 L™-~
QUARTZ COVER
r-~N EXHAUSTED
MATERIAL
262
(Iwamoto Figure 10, as annotated by the Examiner}
As is apparent from Figure 10, the “high flow purge gas inlet” and the
“exhausted H20, Material” outlet do not lie in a second plane that is parallel
to the plane in which the annealing gas inlet and outlet are disposed.
The Examiner finds that “Soman teaches a similar cross-flow reactor
(Figure 2) including teaches six parallel planes defined by entry and exit
points for plural processing gases (106, 108, 110,112, 114; Figure 2).”
(FR 7.) Soman Figure 2 is reproduced below.
(Soman Figure 2: a reactor chamber with a manifold control flow system}
7
Appeal 2017-000070
Application 13/864,849
On this basis, the Examiner concludes, “[i]t would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for
Iwamoto to add an additional, or a larger gas outlet, to Iwamoto’s reactor as
taught by Soman.” (FR 7,11. 11—13; cf. Ans., para, bridging 14—15, arguing
that the additional or larger gas outlet is for introducing plural gas sources.)
In the Answer, the Examiner explains, “[i]t is further noted that
Soman’s structure also suggests relocating Iwamoto’s purge gas outlet. . .
to be planar or nearly coaxial with all of Iwamoto’s gas inlets” because
“Soman’s coplanar inlets and outlet are positioned for optimial [sic] results
including controlling deposition rate (column 1; line 34; column 3; lines 45—
50) which is a function of residence time. Flow rates being equal, longer
path lengths would increase residence time.” (Ans. 13,11. 7—12 (citing
Soman col. 4,11. 43—48.))
As Ranish explains, Soman does not discuss the path length or the
flow path in the passages cited by the Examiner. (Reply13 2, 2d para.)
Rather, Soman discusses the length of time the gas is flashed into the
chamber. The Examiner has not directed our attention to a cogent reason
provided by Soman that would have provided a suggestion or motivation to
change the flow path in the processing chamber of Iwamoto.14 As for
13 Reply Brief filed 26 September 2016 (“Reply”).
14 It has not escaped our attention that the flow of all gases described by
Iwamoto is across the top of the substrate, which can only be exposed to the
reactive gas, source gas, and high-flow purge gas when stage 268 holding
wafer 206 is in the lower position illustrated in Figure 11. There is thus no
teaching in Iwamoto that would have taught or suggested a purge gas inlet
“for flowing a purge gas laterally below the substrate support,” as recited in
claim 1. While the Examiner is correct to note that recitations of intended
8
Appeal 2017-000070
Application 13/864,849
enlarging the gas outlet, as Ranish explains, “such a modification to
Iwamoto et al. would still not teach or suggest the elements of the pending
claims.” (Reply 3,11. 2—3.)
Accordingly, we reverse the appealed rejections.
C. Order
It is ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1—3, 5, and 15—19 is
reversed.
REVERSED
use tend not to impose structural limitations on articles of manufacture, a
machine must be capable of performing the “intended use” in its ordinary
operating condition, or it must be obvious to modify the machine so it would
perform that function and still be useful for its intended purpose. In the
present case, the Examiner has not explained why the reactive gas, source
gas, or high-flow purge gases would be flowed laterally below the substrate
support in the ordinary operation of the device described by Iwamoto, when
those gases are to react and deposit on the upper surface of the substrate
supported by the substrate support.
9