Govinda Raj et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 21, 2019

14616647 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2019)

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.
14/616,647 02/06/2015 Govinda RAJ 22625US 1071
44257 7590 08/21/2019
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - Applied Materials
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
EXAMINER
BENNETT, CHARLEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1718
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/21/2019 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 APPEALS BOARD
____________
Ex parte GOVINDA RAJ and ROBERT T. HIRAHARA
____________
Appeal 2019-000142
Application 14/616,647
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1–9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
the combination of Kosakai (US 2002/0036373 A1, published Mar. 28,
2002), Kitabayashi (US 2004/0218340 A1, published Nov. 4, 2004), and
Sansoni (US 2010/0039747 A1, published Feb. 18, 2010); and claims 10–20
being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over at least Sansoni.2 We have
jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Appellant is the applicant, Applied Materials, Inc., which is also stated to
be the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 3).
2 We refer to the Examiner’s Final Action for a full listing of all the
rejections. Appellant’s arguments are similar for all of the rejections.
Appeal 2019-000142
Application 14/616,647

2
We AFFIRM.
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed subject matter (emphasis
added to highlight key disputed limitation):
1. An electrostatic chuck assembly, comprising:
a body having chucking electrodes disposed therein, the
body having a center and an outer edge, the outer edge
connecting a frontside surface and a backside surface; and
a wafer spacing mask formed on the frontside surface,
the wafer spacing mask having a plurality of elongated features,
the elongated features having long axes that are radial aligned
from the center to the outer edge, the wafer spacing mask
having a plurality of radially aligned gas passages defined
between the elongated features.
Claim 10 is directed to a plasma processing chamber comprising a
chuck assembly similar to that of claim 13 (Claims Appendix, Appeal Br.
18).
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments, and any evidence
produced to support those arguments. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072,
1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637
F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to
require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s
rejections.”).
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellant’s contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence
supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of Appellant’s

3 It appears that claim 1 also could have been rejected over Sansoni alone.
Appeal 2019-000142
Application 14/616,647

3
claims is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the applied prior art. We
sustain all of the § 103 rejections based on the findings of fact, conclusions
of law, and rebuttals to arguments expressed by the Examiner in the Final
Action and the Answer.
We add the following for emphasis.
Appellant’s main argument is that the highlighted claim phrase of
“elongated features having long axes that are radial aligned from the center
to the outer edge” does not encompass the features/shapes of Sansoni’s
chuck assembly (e.g., Appeal Br. 10–13; Reply Br. 2, 3). Appellant also
argues that Sansoni has “an overly broad non-enabling recitation,” such that
a person would have been “incapable of using [same] to derive the claimed
structure” (Appeal Br. 11). These arguments are not persuasive of reversible
error.
The burden of rebutting the presumption of enablement of the cited
prior art by a preponderance of the evidence falls on the applicant. In re
Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 681 (CCPA 1980); discussed further in In re Antor
Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[W]e now hold that a
prior art printed publication cited by an examiner is presumptively
enabling”).
The Examiner aptly points out several reasons why Sansoni has an
enabling disclosure, contrary to Appellant’s position (Ans. 13, (explaining
that Figure 2’s plurality of protrusions or mesas 157 are depicted as
elongated features that are radially aligned, that paragraph 50 explicitly
describes “radial patterns”, and that paragraph 51 describes a variety of
possible shapes for the mesas, inclusive of “rectangular blocks, cones,
wedges, pyramids,” etc.)).
Appeal 2019-000142
Application 14/616,647

4
It is well established that “the PTO must give claims their broadest
reasonable construction consistent with the specification. . . . Therefore, we
look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but
otherwise apply a broad interpretation.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[A]s applicants may amend claims
to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no
unfairness to the applicant or patentee.”)
Here, as the Examiner aptly points out, Appellant’s Specification
lacks any limiting definitions (e.g., Ans. 13). The Specification merely
describes that “elongated features 406” each have a long axis that “may
generally be radially aligned from a centerline 460 to an outer edge 462”
(Spec. ¶ 35). Indeed, the Specification states that the number of elongated
features (“such as a plurality of mesas” (Spec. ¶ 27)) may be increased in
each concentric row (Spec. ¶ 36). If Appellant is trying to argue that the
long axes are radially aligned in series from one feature to the next (e.g.,
Reply Br. 3), the claim is not so limited. Furthermore, as shown in
Appellant’s Figure 4, the elongated axes do not and cannot be completely
radially aligned (in series from one feature to the next) from the center to the
outermost row, since the outermost row has many more elongated features
than the inner rows of elongated features. Notably, the Specification does
not appear to describe any physical configuration of the mesas (features)
other than that they are “elongated” (Spec. ¶ 36), or may be of different
heights (Spec. ¶ 31). Notably, the Specification also states that the drawings
are “not to be considered limiting of [the] scope” of the invention (Spec.
¶ 8).
Appeal 2019-000142
Application 14/616,647

5
Furthermore, claim 1 (as well as claim 10) merely requires “a plurality
of elongated features”; thus, only two elongated features “having long axes
that are radial aligned” are required. The Examiner reasonably determined
that the disputed claim recitation, highlighted in claim 1 above (and also
present in claim 10), reasonably encompasseses the features/shape of
Sansoni’s mesas (Ans. generally), or, alternatively, is obvious and
unpatentable over Sansoni’s mesas, which may, e.g., be rectangular, conical,
or wedge-shaped (e.g., Ans. 14, stating that the claimed disputed broadly
recited feature is fully shown and described in Sansoni, or would have been
a prima facie obvious optimization of mesa shape, size, number, and groove
pattern).
Appellant has not shown any error in the Examiner’s de facto
determination that any modification of the mesas’s shape in the applied prior
art (e.g., to be even more elongated than depicted in Sonsoni’s Figure 2 so as
to have even longer axes (which appear to be de facto already present)) is
prima facie obvious (assuming arguendo that the claimed features do not
indeed already encompass the shape of the applied prior art features/mesas).
Appellant’s argument that Sansoni’s outer solid ring 161 promotes an
“opposite pressure effect” to that of the claimed invention (Appeal Br. 13)
appears to be mere attorney argument, unsupported by any evidence.
Furthermore, Appellant’s own description states that the outermost ring may
be solid (Spec. ¶ 27 (“The outer peripheral ring 225 may be a solid ring”)).
Appellant has not persuasively shown reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness determination. Cf. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 676
(CCPA 1966) (It has been generally held that changes in shape of a known
element are obvious. The court held that the configuration of the claimed
Appeal 2019-000142
Application 14/616,647

6
disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person
of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive
evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was
significant).
Accordingly, a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s broadest reasonable interpretation of the disputed claim term,
and/or alternatively, a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s obviousness determinations regarding “the elongated features
having long axes that are radial aligned from the center to the outer edge.”
To the extent that any of the claims are argued separately, a
preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s position for similar
reasons as discussed above.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED