Ex Parte Tsuei et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 16, 2017

12627578 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 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. 12/627,578 11/30/2009 Lun Tsuei 013931/USA/DISPLAY/SOLAR- 4348 44257 7590 03/20/2017 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 03/20/2017 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 LUN TSUEI, ALAN TSO, TOM K. CHO, and BRIAN SY-YUAN SHIEH Appeal 2015-004971 Application 12/627,5781 Technology Center 1700 Before WESLEY B. DERRICK, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL SUMMARY Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 6, 7, and 26-40. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on March 6, 2017.2 We REVERSE. 1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Applied Materials, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. 2 A written transcript of the oral hearing will be entered into the record when the transcript is made available. Appeal 2015-004971 Application 12/627,578 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants describe the invention as relating to a gas distribution blocker apparatus for improving deposition uniformity on large area substrates. Spec. 12. The apparatus could be used, for example, for depositing material onto a substrate for a solar panel or flat panel display in a plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition process. Id. 13. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added to certain key recitations, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A processing apparatus, comprising: a backing plate having an aperture in fluid communication with a gas source; a showerhead coupled to the backing plate and having a plurality of orifices disposed from an upstream side to a downstream side thereof; and a blocker plate having holes sized and configured to establish a pressure gradient across the blocker plate, and disposed between the backing plate and the showerhead such that a first plenum is formed between the backing plate and the blocker plate and a second plenum is formed between the blocker plate and the showerhead, wherein the volume of the first plenum is adjustable with respect to the volume of the second plenum. Appeal Br.3 18 (Claims App’x). REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims on appeal: Strang US 2003/0019580 A1 Jan. 30, 2003 (hereinafter “Strang”) 3 In this decision, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed June 10, 2014 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed November 17, 2014 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed January 28, 2015 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed March 30, 2015 (“Reply Br.”). 2 Appeal 2015-004971 Application 12/627,578 Keller et al. US 2006/0060138 A1 Mar. 23, 2006 (hereinafter “Keller”) REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal: Rejection 1. Claims 1, 26, 27, 32, 37, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Strang. Ans. 2. Rejection 2. Claims 6, 7, 28—31, 33—36, 38, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Strang in view of Keller. Id. at 6. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 26, and 27 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 recites “a blocker plate having holes sized and configured to establish a pressure gradient across the blocker plate.” Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App’x). Claim 26 includes an identical recitation. Id. at 19. Claim 27 includes a very similar recitation. Id. (reciting “a blocker plate having a plurality of gas passages disposed therethrough sized and configured to establish a pressure gradient across the blocker plate”). For each independent claim, the Examiner finds that plug plate 154 of Strang (as depicted, for example, in Figure 3A of Strang) is a blocker plate. Ans. 2, 11—12. Strang, however, teaches that the plug plate 154 does not have holes sized and configured to establish a pressure gradient. Strang 1 54; see also Appeal Br. 10-15. In particular, plug plate 154 is “sufficiently porous to not hinder the movement of gas in plenum 150 (i.e., the pressure is equilibrated throughout plenum 150).” Strange 54. Rather than serving to create a pressure gradient, plug plate 154 thus “serves the primary purpose of connecting all nozzle plugs 160 to a common, rigid 3 Appeal 2015-004971 Application 12/627,578 medium that, when translated relative to inject plate 124, translates all nozzle plugs the same amount. . . Id. The Examiner finds that plug plate 154 will nonetheless create a pressure differential because any obstacle in internal fluid flow will hinder flow, impart a wake in the flow, and result in a pressure differential. Ans. 13—14. The Examiner further finds that it is physically impossible for there to be no pressure difference in a flow field having a velocity greater than zero. Id. at 16. The kind of pressure differential the Examiner refers to, however, could be de minimis. We hold that a proper construction of the term “pressure gradient” does not include the kind of de minimis pressure difference the Examiner relies upon. Rather, the recited purpose of the recited blocker plate is to block air flow whereas plug plate 154 has the opposite design seeking to “not hinder the movement of gas.” Strang | 54. Thus, the recited “pressure gradient” must be a pressure difference across the blocker plate that is measurable and is significant in the context of the recited process apparatus. Based on this construction, the Examiner has not established that Strang teaches “a blocker plate having holes sized and configured to establish a pressure gradient across the blocker plate.” The Examiner’s use of Keller as a secondary reference does not cure the issue addressed above. Ans. 8—9. Thus, for the reasons explained above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections. DECISION For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 6, 7, and 26-40. REVERSED 4