Kenny Linh. Doan et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 6, 201914020774 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 14/020,774 09/06/2013 Kenny Linh DOAN 20878US 3400 44257 7590 09/06/2019 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - Applied Materials 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600 HOUSTON, TX 77046 EXAMINER KLUNK, MARGARET D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1716 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/06/2019 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 APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KENNY LINH DOAN, JASON DELLA ROSA, HAMID NOORBAKHSH, and JONG MUN KIM Appeal 2019-000062 Application 14/020,774 Technology Center 1700 Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 The Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 20–23.3 We AFFIRM. 1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification filed September 6, 2013, as amended (“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated February 20, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed June 25, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer dated September 4, 2018 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief filed October 2, 2018 (“Reply Br.”). 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to the “Applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). The Appellant is Applied Materials, Inc., also identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appeal 2019-000062 Application 14/020,774 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The invention “relate[s] to controlling the uniformity of critical dimensions along the edge of a substrate during plasma processing.” Spec. ¶ 2. More specifically, the invention relates to a tunable ring process kit for edge critical dimension uniformity control. Id. ¶ 2, Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A ring assembly comprising: an outer ceramic ring having an exposed top surface and a bottom surface; and an inner silicon ring configured to mate with the outer ceramic ring to define an overlap region, wherein an area of the outer ceramic ring overlying the inner silicon ring in the overlap region is tunable, and wherein an inside diameter of the outer ceramic ring is selectable to determine the area, the inner silicon ring having: an inner surface; a substantially flat top surface; a notch formed between the inner surface and the top surface, the inner surface defining an inner diameter of the ring assembly, the notch comprising: an inner top surface extending from the inner surface; and an intermediate face extending from the inner top surface to the top surface, wherein the notch is sized to accept an edge of a substrate, and wherein a height of the outer ceramic ring in the overlap region is greater than a length of the intermediate face; an outer top surface of an outer portion of the inner silicon ring, the outer top surface configured to contact in the overlap region and underlying an inner portion of the bottom surface of the outer ceramic ring; and an inclined surface angled radially inward and upward connecting the outer top surface to the top surface. Appeal 2019-000062 Application 14/020,774 3 REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of unpatentability: Stimson Koshiishi Taylor US 2004/0173156 A1 US 2005/0005859 A1 US 2011/0021031 A1 Sept. 9, 2004 Jan. 13, 2005 Jan. 27, 2011 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: 1. claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 20, 21, and 23 over Stimson in view of Koshiishi, as evidenced by Taylor; and 2. claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 20, and 22 over Koshiishi, as evidenced by Taylor, in view of Stimson. OPINION Rejection over Stimson in view of Koshiishi, as evidenced by Taylor The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 20, 21, and 23 as obvious over Stimson in view of Koshiishi, as evidenced by Taylor. Final Act. 2–8. The Examiner found the claim 1 terms “a substantially flat top surface,” “an outer top surface,” and “an inclined surface” read on three different combinations of surfaces. See id. at 2–4 (interpretations (i)–(iii)). Stimson Figure 3 is reproduced below: Appeal 2019-000062 Application 14/020,774 4 Stimson Figure 3, above, is a detailed, cross-sectional view of an apparatus for supporting a substrate, such as a semiconductor wafer, in a process chamber. Stimson at [57], ¶ 15. A portion of Stimson Figure 3, including the Examiner’s annotations, is reproduced below. Appeal 2019-000062 Application 14/020,774 5 Ans. 12. In annotated Stimson Figure 3, the Examiner identifies the surfaces of Stimson’s inner ring 262 that correspond to the “substantially flat top surface,” the “outer top surface,” and the “inclined surface” under the Examiner’s interpretation (ii). Id. The Examiner also identifies “an overlap region, wherein an area of the outer . . . ring [268] overl[ies] the inner . . . ring [262].” Id.; Final Act. 2. With reference to Stimson Figure 3 and annotated Stimson Figure 3, above, the Examiner finds the claimed “substantially flat top surface” reads on ridge 324; the claimed “outer top surface” reads on upper surfaces 330, 340 and the inclined surface connecting upper surfaces 330, 340; and the claimed “inclined surface” reads on the inclined surface connecting upper surface 340 to ridge 324. Ans. 12; Final Act. 2–3 (citing Stimson Fig. 3, ¶ 32). The sole argument advanced by the Appellant in traversing the rejection of claim 1 under the Examiner’s interpretation (ii) is that Stimson fails to disclose or suggest “an outer top surface of an outer portion of the inner silicon ring . . . underlying an inner portion of the bottom surface of Appeal 2019-000062 Application 14/020,774 6 the outer ceramic ring” as required by claim 1. Reply Br. 5. The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because the Appellant fails to explain, with any degree of specificity, why the surfaces of inner ring 262 and outer ring 268, identified by the Examiner as forming an overlap region, fail to meet the argued claim limitation. The Appellant does not present separate arguments in support of patentability of any of the remaining appealed claims, all of which depend from claim 1.4 Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 20, 21, and 23 as obvious over Stimson in view of Koshiishi, as evidenced by Taylor. Rejection over Koshiishi, as evidenced by Taylor, in view of Stimson The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 20, and 22 as obvious over Koshiishi, as evidenced by Taylor, in view of Stimson. Koshiishi Figure 7 is reproduced below. 4 We do not address the arguments made in the Appeal Brief (see Appeal Br. 12), as they were based on a misunderstanding of the Examiner’s rejection under interpretation (ii) (see Reply Br. 3), which the Examiner clarified in the Response to Argument section of the Answer (see Ans. 11–13). In other words, these arguments are unpersuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection because they do not address the facts and reasons relied on by the Examiner. Appeal 2019-000062 Application 14/020,774 7 Koshiishi Figure 7 is a cross sectional view of a part of a ring mechanism. Koshiishi ¶ 27. Koshiishi Figure 9B is reproduced below: Koshiishi Figure 9B is a cross sectional view describing operation of the ring mechanism. Koshiishi ¶ 29. Claim 1 With reference to Koshiishi Figures 7 and 9B, the Examiner finds the claimed “substantially flat top surface” reads on the top surface of inner ring 25a depicted in Figure 9B, and the “outer top surface” reads on step portion 52 (identified in Figure 7, but unnumbered in Figure 9B). Ans. 13; Final Appeal 2019-000062 Application 14/020,774 8 Act. 5. The Examiner found the surface connecting Koshiishi’s substantially flat top surface and outer top surface (52) is vertical, rather than inclined as required by claim 1. Final Act. 5. The Examiner found that changing the angle of the connecting surface from vertical to inclined would have been nothing more than a routine change of shape, noting Stimson demonstrates that the use of an angled shape to connect two surfaces was known in the art at the time of the invention. Id. at 5–6 (citing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1966)); see Dailey, 357 F.2d at 672–73 (“Appellants have presented no argument which convinces us that the particular configuration of their container is significant or is anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing mating surfaces in the collapsed container of Matzen.”). The Appellant contends the Examiner failed to identify sufficient evidentiary support for finding that changing Koshiishi’s vertical surface to an inclined surface would have been an obvious modification. Reply Br. 6–7 (citing In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). The Appellant argues that “[o]ne skilled in the art would know altering the ring shape would additionally alter the function of the ring, i.e., controlling the profile of the plasma boundary sheath.” Id. at 7. The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. The Appellant cites Ochiai for the proposition that the Examiner erred in failing to engage in “the fact-specific analysis required under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)” (sic, § 103) and instead applied a per se rule in finding that changing the angle of Koshiishi’s vertical surface would have been an obvious modification. Reply Br. 7. Unlike the obviousness analysis in Ochiai wherein the court found Appeal 2019-000062 Application 14/020,774 9 that the Examiner “sidestepp[ed] the particularized inquiry required by section 103 by grounding the rejection on the supposedly ‘controlling’ effect of [other cases],” 71 F.3d at 1570–71, the Examiner in the present case identified specific teachings in Stimson to support a finding that changing Koshiishi’s vertical surface to an inclined surface would have been an obvious modification. See Final Act. 5–6. Thus, the Examiner properly shifted the burden to the Appellant to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness. The Appellant’s arguments are not supported by evidence and, therefore, are not sufficient to meet this burden. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (explaining that argument by counsel cannot take the place of evidence). The Appellant does not make separate arguments in support of patentability of dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 7, or 20. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 20 as obvious over Koshiishi, as evidenced by Taylor, in view of Stimson. Claim 22 Claim 22 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the inner top surface is coplanar with the outer top surface.” Appeal Br. 21 (Claims Appendix). As to claim 22, the Examiner found Koshiishi Figures 9A and 9B appear to show that the inner top surface (surface of ring 25a below wafer W) and outer top surface (52) of inner ring 25 are coplanar. Final Act. 5, 9; Ans. 13–14. The Examiner further found one of ordinary skill in the art would have optimized the positions of the surfaces “to achieve the desired wafer processing and edge gas flow dynamics.” Final Act. 9. The Appellant essentially contends that the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to support a finding that one of ordinary skill Appeal 2019-000062 Application 14/020,774 10 in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in changing the positions of Koshiishi’s inner and outer top surfaces to make them coplanar because “[e]ach and every angle, surface and dimension of a ring assembly in a processing chamber affects the plasma-sheath boundary curvature at and near the periphery of the substrate.” Appeal Br. 15; Reply Br. 8. The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. The Examiner finds that Koshiishi’s Figures 9A and 9B demonstrate that it is the height of the outer ring relative to the height of the inner ring that is of significance for plasma processing. Ans. 14. The Examiner’s finding is supported by Koshiishi paragraphs 101 and 102. By contrast, the Appellant has not identified persuasive evidentiary support for its assertion that one of ordinary skill would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in using an inner ring having coplanar inner and outer top surfaces in Koshiishi’s mechanism. We have considered the Appellant’s citation to Figure 4 and corresponding description in the Specification. See Reply Br. 8–9. However, we do not find this evidence persuasive because Figure 4 shows that etch rate differs with the amount of overlap between the outer ring and outer top surface of the inner ring. See Spec. ¶ 62. The Appellant has not explained clearly the relevance of this evidence to the Examiner’s finding that the ordinary artisan would have modified the heights of the surfaces of Koshiishi’s inner ring. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 22 as obvious over Koshiishi, as evidenced by Taylor, in view of Stimson. Appeal 2019-000062 Application 14/020,774 11 CONCLUSION The Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 20–23. Accordingly, we sustain all grounds of rejection. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation