Ex Parte Rocha-Alvarez et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 2018

14036170 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/036,170 09/25/2013 Juan Carlos ROCHA-ALVAREZ
44257 7590 05/01/2018
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.
Ol 7898USA/DSM/BCVD/AG 1083
EXAMINER
GRAY,PAULJ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2018 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 JUAN CARLOS ROCHA-ALVAREZ,
AMIT KUMAR BANSAL, GANESH BALASUBRAMANIAN,
JIANHUA ZHOU, and RAMPRAKASH SANKARAKRISHNAN
Appeal2017-000853
Application 14/036,170
Technology Center 3700
Before JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-000853
Application 14/036, 170
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants Juan Carlos Rocha-Alvarez et al. 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision, as set forth in the Final Office
Action dated November 5, 2015 ("Final Act."), and Advisory Action dated
January 22, 2016 ("Adv. Act."), rejecting claims 2-13 and 15-19 under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Kato (US 2011/0214611 Al,
published September 8, 2011) and Tseng (US 5,780,360, issued July 14,
1998).2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an apparatus for processing a substrate.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 2,
reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized for emphasis, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
2. An apparatus for processing a substrate, comprising:
a chamber with a side wall and a bottom wall;
a heater plate disposed on a support stem extending
through the bottom wall;
a second plate below the heater plate, the second plate
having an opening around the support stem and forming an
evacuation plenum between the heater plate and the second plate
and a bottom plenum between the second plate and the bottom
wall;
a gas distribution showerhead opposite the heater plate
forming a processing area between the heater plate and the gas
distribution showerhead; and
a peripheral opening in the bottom wall coupled to a
vacuum pump.
Appellants identify Applied Materials, Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief, dated April 5, 2016 ("Appeal Br."), at 3.
2 Claims 1 and 14 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 13-15 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal2017-000853
Application 14/036, 170
DISCUSSION
The Rejection of Claims 2-13 and 15-19
as Unpatentable Over Kato and Tseng
The Examiner finds that the combination of Kato and Tseng disclose
all of the limitations of claims 2-13 and 15-19. Final Act. 3-8; Adv. Act. 2.
In particular, with respect to independent claims 2 and 16, the Examiner
finds that Kato's turntable 2 corresponds to the recited "heater plate," Kato's
heater unit 7 corresponds to the recited "second plate," and Kato's heater
unit 7 is "below" the turntable 2. Id. The Examiner explains that Kato
discloses that "the turntable 2 is preheated by the heater unit 7 ... and the
wafer Wis heated by being set on this preheated turntable 2." Answer, dated
July 22, 2016 ("Ans."), at 7 (citing Kato i-f 89). With respect to independent
claim 9, the Examiner finds that Tseng's throttle valve 86 corresponds to the
recited "slit valve opening." Final Act. 5; Ans. 8.
Appellants assert that the Examiner's rejection is erroneous for
several reasons. With respect to the Examiner's rejection regarding claims
2-8 and 16-19, Appellants contend that the "heater plate" recited in
independent claims 2 and 16 is Kato's heater unit 7, not turntable 2. Appeal
Br. 8; Reply Brief, dated October 21, 2016 ("Reply Br."), at 3. We
understand from the Specification that a heater plate is the source of the heat
that is introduced into processing chamber 102, and directly heats second
plate 110 and the substrate. Spec. i-f 4. Similarly, Kato's heater unit 7 is the
source of the heat introduced into vacuum chamber 1, and directly heats
turntable 2 and wafer W. Kato i-f 83. In contrast to the Specification, Kato' s
turntable 2 does not introduce any heat into chamber 1; without heater unit
7, turntable 2 does not generate any heat. Id. Thus, we agree with
3
Appeal2017-000853
Application 14/036, 170
Appellants that Kato's heater unit 7 corresponds to the recited "heater unit"
and Kato does not disclose a heater unit "below" a second plate, as recited in
claims 2 and 16. The Examiner does not assert that Tseng remedies the
deficiencies of Kato. Thus, the rejection of claims 2-8 and 16-19 is not
sustained.
With respect to the Examiner's rejection regarding claims 9-15,
Appellants contend that Tseng does not disclose a "slit valve opening"
recited in independent claim 9. Appeal Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 3--4. We agree.
The Specification states that "[ s ]ubstrates are inserted into and removed
from the processing chamber 102 through a slit valve opening 106 formed
through the chamber body." Spec. i-f 4. In light of the Specification's
disclosure, a "slit valve opening" is not a "valve" that has a "slit" in it, as
asserted by the Examiner. Ans. 8. Tseng's throttle valve 86 regulates the
pressure of the processing chamber 12 (Tseng 5:27-28), and does not permit
substrates to be inserted and removed from the processing chamber 12, as
required of the recited "slit valve opening." Thus, we agree with Appellants
that Tseng does not disclose a slit valve opening, as recited in claim 9. The
Examiner does not assert that Kato remedies the deficiencies of Tseng.
Thus, the rejection of claims 9-15 is not sustained.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-13 and
15-19 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
4