Kenny Linh. Doan et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 6, 2019

14020774 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 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.
14/020,774 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