Ex Parte Rocha-Alvarez et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 27, 201814036170 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation