LAM Research Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 1, 2021

2019007007 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2021)

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. 13/858,834 04/08/2013 Andreas Fischer LAM2P842 6654 119049 7590 03/01/2021 PENILLA IP, APC and Lam Research Corp. Albert Penilla 1200 Pacific Avenue Suite 250 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 EXAMINER KLUNK, MARGARET D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1716 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2021 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 lamptomail@mpiplaw.com pipdocket@penillaip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ANDREAS FISCHER __________ Appeal 2019-007007 Application 13/858,834 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, GEORGE C. BEST, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the non-final2 rejections of claims 1, 3, 9–11, 13, 16, 18, and 19. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Lam Research Corp. (Appeal Br. 3). 2 We note that Appellant properly appeals from the Examiner’s non-final rejection of Dec. 6, 2018 because the claims on appeal have been twice rejected. See 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)(“[a]n applicant for a patent, any of whose claims has been twice rejected, may appeal from the decision of the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.”). Appeal 2019-007007 Application 13/858,834 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention is directed to an apparatus for processing wafers or substrates in a plasma processing chamber (Spec. ¶ 1). A conventional capacitively coupled plasma (CCP) processing chamber includes two or more electrode assemblies disposed in a spatially separated manner, with at least one of the electrode assemblies powered by one or more RF generator(s) (id. ¶ 4; Fig. 1). According to the Specification, localized control of processing uniformity may be enhanced by: (i) a multi-segment upper electrode assembly and (ii) RF signal manipulation of the assembly’s different electrode segments (id. ¶ 8). The Specification describes a multi- segment electrode assembly having a plurality of electrode segments energized by a plurality of RF signals, with at least one of the electrode segments having a plasma-facing surface that is non-planar (id. ¶ 25). Claims 1, 9, and 10 are illustrative (emphasis added): 1. A multi-segment electrode assembly having a plurality of electrode segments for modifying a plasma in a plasma processing chamber, the multi-segment electrode assembly being an upper electrode that is disposed over a lower electrode of a processing chamber, the multi-segment electrode assembly comprising: a first powered electrode segment having a first plasma- facing surface that faces the lower electrode, said first powered electrode segment configured to be powered by a first RF signal, the first powered electrode segment defined as a first concentric ring; and a second powered electrode segment having a second plasma-facing surface that faces the lower electrode, said second powered electrode segment configured to be powered by a second RF signal, the second powered electrode segment defined as a second concentric ring having a larger circumference than the first concentric ring and is disposed Appeal 2019-007007 Application 13/858,834 3 around the first concentric ring of the first powered electrode segment, such that the first and second electrodes are concentric relative to each other, said second powered electrode segment being electrically insulated from said first powered electrode segment, wherein said first plasma-facing surface of the first concentric ring is convex in a radial cross-section and said second plasma-facing surface of the second concentric ring is concave in said radial cross-section. 9. The multi-segment electrode assembly of claim 1 wherein said plasma processing chamber represents an adjustable-gap plasma processing chamber wherein a gap between a substrate and said multi-segment electrode assembly is adjustable. 10. The multi-segment electrode assembly of claim 9 wherein said gap between said substrate and said multi-segment electrode assembly is adjustable in-situ. Appellant appeals the following rejections: 1. Claims 1, 3, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite (Non-Final Act. 3–4). 2. Claims 1, 3, 11, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mitrovic et al. (US 2004/0168770 A1; published Sept. 2, 2004, “Mitrovic”) in view of Wei (US 2011/0241547 A1; published Oct. 6, 2011), and further in view of Paterson et al. (US 2008/0178805 A1; published July 31, 2008, “Paterson”) (Non-Final Act. 4–10). 3. Claims 9, 10, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mitrovic, in view of Wei, Paterson, and further in view of Collins et al. (US 2008/0179011 A1; published July 31, 2008, “Collins”) (Non-Final Act. 10–11). Appeal 2019-007007 Application 13/858,834 4 4. Claims 1, 3, 9–11, 13, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Paterson in view of Wei (Non-Final Act. 12–16). With respect to the obviousness rejections, Appellant argues claims 1, 3, 9–11, 13, 16, 18, and 19 as a group (see generally Appeal Br. 10–17). Independent claim 11 and dependent claims 3, 9–10, 13, 16, 18, and 19 will stand or fall under these rejections with our analysis of independent claim 1. FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS A. Rejection of claims 1, 3, 9, and 10 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) Appellant offers separate arguments in support of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 9 and 10 (id. at 6–7). Dependent claim 3 will stand or fall under this rejection with our analysis of independent claim 1. Claims 9 and 10 will be discussed separately. a. Claim 1 Whether a claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) requires giving the claims the broadest reasonable interpretation and then determining whether the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are unclear. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2014). A claim is in compliance with § 112(b) if those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification. Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner determines that claim 1 is indefinite because a chamber and a lower electrode are recited, but “[t]hese features are not actively claimed” or “inherent structures” of the claimed multi-segment electrode assembly (Non-Final Act. 3). According to the Examiner, it is unclear if Appeal 2019-007007 Application 13/858,834 5 claim 1 encompasses a multi-segment electrode having “a first plasma- facing surface that faces a lower electrode” or an electrode merely capable of doing so (Ans. 17). Appellant contends that claim 1 provides the position of the multi- segment electrode assembly in relation to the plasma processing chamber’s lower electrode and thus is not indefinite (Appeal Br. 6). Appellant argues that claim 1 properly provides antecedent basis in the preamble for claim terms, which are recited in the body of the claim to provide relative orientation (Reply Br. 3). The preponderance of the evidence favors Appellant’s arguments that the claims are not indefinite. Claim 1 is drawn to a multi-segment electrode assembly having “segments for modifying a plasma in a plasma processing chamber” (Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.)). The preamble of claim 1 recites that the multi-segment electrode assembly is “an upper electrode that is disposed over” the processing chamber’s lower electrode (id.). The body of claim 1 recites language describing the relative orientation of electrode segment surfaces to the chamber and the lower electrode (id.). The Specification explains that a typical processing chamber includes “two or more electrode assemblies [that] may be disposed in a spatially separated manner” (Spec. ¶ 4). The Specification’s Figure 1 illustrates the known relative orientations of components recited in claim 1. Figure 3 depicts the position of plasma-facing or substrate-facing surfaces on upper electrode segments (id. Fig. 3). Based upon the description and figures provided in the Specification, we agree with Appellant that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is claimed by Appellant. We do not agree with the Appeal 2019-007007 Application 13/858,834 6 Examiner that the claim is unclear as to whether the chamber and the lower electrode are required. Rather, we view the claim as describing in functional language how the upper electrode is positioned in relation to a chamber and a lower electrode. See In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212 (CCPA 1971) (“[T]here is nothing intrinsically wrong with [defining something by what it does rather than what it is] in drafting patent claims.”). One of ordinary skill in the art having read the Specification would understand what is being recited in claim 1. For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s § 112(b) rejection of claim 1. b. Claims 9 and 10 The Examiner determines that claims 9 and 10 are indefinite because it is unclear whether the recited references to a chamber and a substrate require the claim to include both components (Non-Final Act. 4; Ans. 17). The Examiner concludes that it is further unclear if these claims require an actuator or an additional structure for adjusting the gap between a substrate and a multi-segment electrode assembly (Non-Final Act. 4; Ans. 17). Appellant contends that paragraph 44 of the Specification clearly describes “that when a substrate is present over the lower electrode, a gap between the substrate and the multi-segment electrode can be adjusted” (Appeal Br. 7). Appellant argues that the recitation of the chamber limits or defines the gap between the substrate and the multi-segment electrode (Reply Br. 3). Based upon the description provided in the Specification, we agree with Appellant that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is claimed by Appellant. We do not agree with the Examiner that the claim is Appeal 2019-007007 Application 13/858,834 7 unclear as to whether the claims require additional structure for providing the adjustable gap. Rather, we view the claim as describing in functional language how the upper electrode is positioned in relation to a substrate and a chamber. See Swinehart, 439 F.2d at 212 (CCPA 1971). For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s § 112(b) rejection of claims 9 and 10. B. Rejection of claims 1, 3, 11, 13, and 16 as unpatentable over the combination of Mitrovic, Wei, and Paterson The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding Mitrovic, Wei, and Paterson are located on pages 4 through 10 of the Non-Final Office Action. The Examiner finds that Mitrovic teaches the subject matter of claim 1 except for first and second electrode segments having: (i) a ring shape and concentric arrangement and (ii) non-planar plasma-facing surfaces (Non-Final Act. 5). Regarding Mitrovic’s missing element (i), the Examiner finds Wei teaches that a segmented electrode may be arranged in concentric rings (id. at 5). The Examiner finds that Wei describes an arrangement of concentric rings improves the uniformity of the plasma process relative to other arrangements (id.). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Mitrovic’s first and second electrode segments with Wei’s concentric rings arrangement because Mitrovic teaches an apparatus for working on a circular substrate (id.). With regard to Mitrovic’s missing element (ii), the Examiner finds Paterson teaches different plasma-facing surface shapes including “an inner convex portion and an outer concave portion (Fig 12E) along with the options for an entire electrode to be flat (12B), concave (12A) or convex Appeal 2019-007007 Application 13/858,834 8 (12C)” (id. at 6). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to include a convex plasma-facing surface on the inner ring and a concave plasma-facing surface on the outer ring of Mitrovic’s modified electrode segments because Paterson teaches that these shapes are recognized alternatives to control the radial distribution processing rate (id.). The Examiner finds that Mitrovic is concerned with uniformity of processing and Paterson’s control over the processing rate would have improved such uniformity (id.). Appellant argues that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness because the applied prior art fails to teach each limitation recited in claim 1 (Appeal Br. 10). Appellant argues that the Examiner “improperly uses Wei and Paterson” for teaching limitations neither disclosed nor suggested in Mitrovic (id.). Appellant argues that Wei fails to teach concentric rings having non-planar surfaces (id.). Appellant argues that Paterson does not teach the requisite shape(s): (i) along a radial cross-section and (ii) of a specific inner or outer concentric ring (id. at 12). Appellant contends that Paterson teaches sculpting of the shape “across the workpiece,” which is distinguished from the segmented shapes required by claim 1 (id.; see generally id. at 12–14). According to Appellant, these arguments identify each references’ deficient teachings and how the teachings are not combinable (Reply Br. 3– 4). Appellant contends that the Examiner has not articulated why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Mitrovic, Wei, and Paterson (id. at 6). Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. Appeal 2019-007007 Application 13/858,834 9 We agree with the Examiner that these arguments improperly attack the references individually instead of addressing what the combined teachings of the applied prior art would have suggested (Ans. 18). See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner’s rejection is based upon the combined teachings of Mitrovic, Wei, and Paterson. Appellant’s argument attacking only Wei’s failure to teach non-planar surfaces does not address the Examiner’s findings that Paterson teaches different shapes for non-planar surfaces (Non-Final Act. 4–6). Appellant’s arguments attacking Paterson’s failure to teach non-planar shapes along a radial cross-section and shapes of a specific inner or outer concentric ring ignore the teachings of Mitrovic and Wei, which teach multi-segment electrode assemblies (id. at 4– 5). The teachings of Mitrovic and Wei, which are both directed to the goal of uniform plasma processing, would have suggested a multi-segment electrode assembly having a concentric ring arrangement with each ring or segment electrically insulated from the other (id.). As the Examiner finds, Paterson teaches recognized options for plasma-facing surface shapes, which can be selected for the goal of plasma processing uniformity (id. at 6). In other words, the modification of Mitrovic’s multi-segment electrode for work on circular substrates, with both: (i) Wei’s multi-concentric rings and (ii) Paterson’s concave and convex shapes, would have provided in each concentric ring the requisite shape along a radial cross-section (see Ans. 19 (finding that Paterson’s wavy structure divided into rings would have resulted in convex rings and concave rings)). The Examiner has established reasons why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have made the proposed modifications (Non-Final Act. 4– Appeal 2019-007007 Application 13/858,834 10 5). Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, those reasons are not based on an assertion that the proposed modifications would have been “simple to try” (Reply Br. 6). Appellant, furthermore, has not proffered evidence that using the claimed multi-segment electrode assembly yielded unexpected results. We sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection over Mitrovic, Wei, and Paterson. C. Rejection of claims 9, 10, 18, and 19 as unpatentable over the combination of Mitrovic, Wei, Paterson, and Collins. The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding Mitrovic, Wei, Paterson, and Collins are located on pages 10 through 11 of the Non-Final Office Action. Appellant relies on the unpersuasive arguments regarding claim 1 in contesting the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of dependent claims 9, 10, 18, and 19 over Mitrovic, Wei, Paterson, and Collins (Appeal Br. 17). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection over Mitrovic, Wei, Paterson, and Collins. D. Rejection of claims 1, 3, 9–11, 13, 16, 18, and 19 as unpatentable over the combination of Paterson and Wei. The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding Paterson and Wei are located on pages 12 through 16 of the Non-Final Office Action. The Examiner finds that Paterson teaches the subject matter of claim 1 except for first and second concentric rings: (i) powered by a first and second RF Appeal 2019-007007 Application 13/858,834 11 signals, respectively, and (ii) electrically insulated from each other (Non- Final Act. 12). The Examiner finds that Wei teaches each of the limitations missing from Paterson (id. at 12–13). The Examiner concludes, inter alia, that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to divide Paterson’s concentric portions into ring segments because Paterson’s electrode is circular and Wei demonstrates concentric rings as a way of dividing a circular electrode (id.). Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reasons for dividing Paterson’s concentric portions into rings lack the necessary rational underpinning to support a prima facie case of obviousness (Appeal Br. 15). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because it improperly attacks Paterson individually instead of addressing what the combined teachings of Paterson and Wei would have suggested. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. As the Examiner finds, Wei teaches that dividing a circular electrode into “a concentric arrangement[] allow[s] for control of center vs edge effects” (Non-Final Act. 13 (citing Wei ¶ 37; Fig. 8)). Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s reasoning that Wei’s teachings would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to divide Paterson’s concentric portions into ring segments. We sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection over Paterson and Wei. Appeal 2019-007007 Application 13/858,834 12 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 9, 10 112(b) Indefiniteness 1, 3, 9, 10 1, 3, 11, 13, 16 103 Mitrovic, Wei, Paterson 1, 3, 11, 13, 16 9, 10, 18, 19 103 Mitrovic, Wei, Paterson, Collins 9, 10, 18, 19 1, 3, 9–11, 13, 16, 18, 19 103 Paterson, Wei 1, 3, 9–11, 13, 16, 18, 19 Overall Outcome 1, 3, 9–11, 13, 16, 18, 19 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