Lam Research Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 10, 2020

15046959 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 10, 2020)

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.
15/046,959 02/18/2016 Michael Kellogg 3849-1US 1094
91286 7590 11/10/2020
Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (Lam)
5445 Corporate Dr.
Suite 200
Troy, MI 48098
EXAMINER
RODEE, CHRISTOPHER D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1796
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/10/2020 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
sstevens@hdp.com
troymailroom@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________
Ex parte MICHAEL KELLOGG
____________
Appeal 2019-004292
Application 15/046,959
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON,
GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.

OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 5–9. Appeal Br. 6–17. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Lam
Research Corporation. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-004292
Application 15/046,959
2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s application is titled “3D Printed Plasma Arrestor for an
Electrostatic Chuck.” An electrostatic chuck supports a substrate, such as a
semiconductor wafer, during an etching process. Spec. ¶¶ 3–4, 23. An inert
gas may be supplied to a back side of the substrate to control the temperature
of the electrostatic chuck. Id. ¶¶ 4–6.
Appellant also refers to a plasma “arrestor” that is located in the
electrostatic chuck and is typically made of porous ceramic material. Appeal
Br. 14; Spec. ¶¶ 1, 7. In the prior art, an arrestor does not include any
channels. Appeal Br. 14, 16; see also Fig. 1 (illustrating that, in prior art
electrostatic chuck 50, arrestor 90 does not have any channels). Accordingly,
backside gas flows through arrestor 90, because it is porous, but there is no
direct line of sight between the gas inlet and gas outlet. Appeal Br. 14; Spec.
¶ 8.
Appellant discloses a method of manufacturing an arrestor for an
electrostatic chuck that may be made of ceramic, glass, plastic, or the like,
and, unlike the prior art, includes a gas flow channel. Appeal Br. 14, 16;
Spec. ¶¶ 9–10, 23. The gas flow channel provides a gas flow path that does
not have a direct line of sight from the gas inlet to gas outlet. Appeal Br. 14;
Spec. ¶ 23. Specifically, claim 1 recites:
A method for manufacturing an arrestor for an
electrostatic chuck, comprising:
using a 3-D printer:
printing first, lower layers of an arrestor for an
electrostatic chuck using an electrically non-conductive
material, wherein the first, lower layers of the arrestor include
and at least partially define a first opening to a gas flow channel
through the first, lower layers in a vertical direction;
Appeal 2019-004292
Application 15/046,959
3

subsequent to printing the first, lower layers, printing
intermediate layers of the arrestor on the first, lower layers
using the electrically non-conductive material, wherein the
intermediate layers of the arrestor at least partially define the
gas flow channel and connect the gas flow channel to the first
opening defined in the first, lower layers; and
subsequent to printing the intermediate layers, printing
second, upper layers of the arrestor on the intermediate layers
using the electrically non-conductive material, wherein the
second, upper layers of the arrestor include and at least partially
define a second opening of the gas flow channel through the
second, upper layers in the vertical direction, and wherein at
least one of the first opening, the second opening and/or the gas
flow channel of the arrestor is arranged to prevent a direct line
of sight between the first opening and the second opening of the
arrestor.
Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.).
OPINION
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, and 5–9
as obvious over Hongo2 in view of Gibson.3 Final Act. 4–6. The Examiner
also rejects claims 1, 2, and 5–9 as obvious over Mongillo, Jr.4 (id. at 2–4),
but on appeal, withdraws that ground in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3).
Accordingly, we address only the rejection over Hongo and Gibson.
Appellant argues, as a group, claims 1, 2, and 5–9 as rejected over Hongo
and Gibson. Appeal Br. 13–18. We select claim 1 as representative of the
group. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv).

2 US 2011/0017645 A1, published Jan. 27, 2011.
3 Gibson, I., Rosen, D., & Stucker, B. (2015). Additive Manufacturing
Technologies. Springer.
4 US 2016/0023272 A1, published Jan. 28, 2016.
Appeal 2019-004292
Application 15/046,959
4

The Examiner finds that Hongo discloses a particle classifying device
that contains delivery and collection channels that may be formed of ceramic
using a layer-by-layer build-up process. Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner also
finds that Hongo does not specifically disclose using a 3D printer to
manufacture the device, but turns to Gibson for teaching this limitation. Id.
at 5. In the Examiner’s view, it would have been an obvious matter of design
choice to manufacture the device in an orientation as illustrated in Hongo.
Id.
Appellant disagrees with the Examiner’s finding that Hongo’s device
meets the requirements of an arrestor as set forth in the claims. Appeal
Br. 13–14. Appellant argues that the “arrestor” of claim 1, as described in
the Specification, is characterized by a structure that is specifically useful in
an electrostatic chuck—whereas Hongo’s device is useful for separating and
classifying particles. Id. at 14–15 (citing Hongo Fig. 1). Appellant asserts
that the structure of Hongo’s device is not “sized or shaped in a manner to fit
in an opening of a plate of an ESC [electrostatic chuck] or provide the
function of an arrestor as understood by one skilled in the art of substrate
processing.” Id. at 15.
In response, the Examiner agrees that Hongo’s device, as modified by
Gibson, is not described as an arrestor. Ans. 4. But the Examiner contends,
nevertheless, that the prior art suggests the same structure that is claimed. Id.
at 3–7.
We agree with the Examiner that, although Hongo’s device is not
explicitly described as “an arrestor for an electrostatic chuck” as recited in
claim 1, Hongo’s device meets the structural requirements of claim 1. In
particular, we discern no error in the Examiner’s finding that Hongo’s
device has open airflow channels without a direct line of sight through the
Appeal 2019-004292
Application 15/046,959
5

channels. Final Act. 4 (citing Hongo Figs. 1, 5–8); see also Ans. 2, 7
(explaining that Hongo’s device has the requisite channel pathways to
function as an arrestor for an electrostatic chuck). That finding is consistent
with the Specification’s description of “an arrestor for . . . an [electrostatic
chuck]” as a structure that “prevent[s] a direct line of sight from a gas inlet
to a gas outlet.” Spec. ¶ 23. Additionally, the written description informs that
“the arrestor is made from an electrically non-conductive material such as
ceramic, glass, plastic, etc.” (id.; see also id. ¶ 7 (sintered porous ceramic
material)), and the Examiner shows that Hongo’s device similarly is made of
ceramic (Final Act. 4; Ans. 5).
We find unpersuasive Appellant’s contention that the structure of
Hongo’s device “is not sized or shaped in a manner to fit in an opening of a
plate of an [electrostatic chuck] or provide the function of an arrestor.”
Appeal Br. 15. Neither the claims nor the Specification describes the arrestor
or electrostatic chuck as being sized or shaped in any particular way. On the
contrary, the written description states that although “specific examples of
body shapes are shown for the arrestor, still other body shapes may be used.”
Spec. ¶ 24.
We take note of Appellant’s argument that “[e]lectrostatic chucks are
typically sized to accommodate semiconductor substrates having a diameter
of, for example, 200 or 300 mm, and arrestors must be sized to fit within . . .
the electrostatic chuck.” Reply Br. 4. But Appellant directs us to no record
proof of the dimensions of an electrostatic chuck; therefore, that argument is
unsupported. Id. In any event, even if we accept Appellant’s bare assertion
that the dimensions of a typical electrostatic chuck must be sized to
accommodate semiconductor substrates, the electrostatic chuck recited in the
claim is not limited to any particular size. For example, claim 1 does not
Appeal 2019-004292
Application 15/046,959
6

recite any intended use for the electrostatic chuck from which a size can be
inferred, and the written description does not limit the shape of the arrestor
(see Spec. ¶ 24).5
Appellant also argues that “the particle classifying device of Hongo is
clearly not analogous to a plasma arrestor for an electrostatic chuck”. Reply
Br. 2. In that regard, we agree with the Examiner that, even though Hongo’s
device is not explicitly described as an arrestor for an electrostatic chuck,
that alone does not make claim 1 patentable (Ans. 4). See In re Schreiber,
128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of
a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old
product patentable.”). As discussed above, the Specification describes “an
arrestor for . . . an [electrostatic chuck]” as a structure that is made from a
material such as ceramic that contains a “gas flow channel [that] defines a
gas flow path that does not have a direct line of sight from the gas inlet to
the gas outlet” (Spec. ¶ 23), and is not limited to any particular shape (id.
¶ 24). Because Hongo discloses these structural features, the record supports
the Examiner’s position that Hongo’s device is capable of functioning as the
claimed arrestor for an electrostatic chuck, including by promoting airflow
through channels. Ans. 5, 7.
Finally, Appellant argues that “an arrestor” should be interpreted as
“‘a device which prevents or stops a specified thing.’” Reply Br. 4.
Appellant does not provide citations to the Specification or any other

5 We further observe that Appellant does not explain why Hongo’s device
would not meet the asserted sizing requirement for use in an electrostatic
chuck (to accommodate semiconductor substrates having a diameter of 200
mm or 300 mm). Reply Br. 4. Notably, Appellant does not address that, in
one embodiment, Hongo’s device is 200 mm x 40 mm. See Hongo Fig. 3.
Appeal 2019-004292
Application 15/046,959
7

evidence in support this additional asserted function. Further, even if the
claimed arrestor does require that additional feature, Appellant does not
explain why a ceramic structure as disclosed in Hongo would not perform
this function.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 5–9.
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5–9 103 Hongo, Gibson 1, 2, 5–9

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).

AFFIRMED