Lee, Matthew Michael.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 26, 2019

14836202 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 26, 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.
14/836,202 08/26/2015 Matthew Michael Lee 3542-2US 7187
91286 7590 12/26/2019
Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (Lam)
P.O. Box 828
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303
EXAMINER
KLUNK, MARGARET D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/26/2019 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):
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 MATTHEW MICHAEL LEE
____________________

Appeal 2019-003923
Application 14/836,202
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Before MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, and
AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

ROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 In our Decision we refer to the Specification filed August 26, 2015, as
amended, (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action appealed from dated June 13,
2018 (“Final”), the Appeal Brief filed November 6, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer dated March 8, 2019 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed
April 24, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 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 2019-003923
Application 14/836,202

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal relates to “substrate processing systems,
and more particularly to edge seals used in substrate processing systems.”
Spec. ¶ 2. “In some [substrate processing] systems, the substrate support
includes an electrostatic chuck (ESC)” and “[t]he ESC may include an edge
seal that protects adhesive bonding layers that are used to bond a heater plate
to a ceramic top plate of the ESC.” Id. ¶¶ 4–5. “When left unprotected, the
adhesive bonding layers are damaged and particle contamination occurs”
and the electrostatic chuck can be permanently damaged. Id. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An electrostatic chuck comprising:
an upper layer;
an intermediate layer;
a lower layer;
a first adhesive bonding layer arranged between the upper
layer and the
intermediate layer;
a second adhesive bonding layer arranged between the
intermediate layer and the lower layer, wherein radially outer
edges of the intermediate layer and the first and second adhesive
bonding layers form an annular slot relative to the upper layer
and the lower layer; and
an edge seal arranged in the annular slot, wherein the edge
seal includes an annular body including a radially inner surface,
a radially outer surface, a top surface and a bottom surface, and
wherein the radially inner surface has a continuous convex
curvature.
Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-003923
Application 14/836,202

3
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
A. Claims 1–10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Liu3 as evidenced by Tuckness,4 and in
view of Foster5 and Schaefer.6 Final Act. 2.

B. Claims 11 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Liu as evidenced by Tuckness, and in
view of Foster. Id. at 5.

C. Claims 12 and 14–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Liu as evidenced by Tuckness, and in
view of Foster, and further in view of Schaefer. Id. at 7.
Appellant seeks our review of Rejections A–C. See generally
Appeal Br. Appellant presents argument for claims 1 and 3, and does not
argue any remaining claim separate from the arguments advanced in support
of claims 1 and 3. See id. Therefore, consistent with the provisions of
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013), we limit our discussion to claims 1 and
3, and all other claims stand or fall together with the claim from which they
depend.

3 Liu et al., US 2010/0027188 A1, published February 4, 2010 (“Liu”).
4 Tuckness et al., US 2010/0219592 A1, published September 2, 2010
(“Tuckness”).
5 Mike Foster, US 2014/0312570 A1, published October 23, 2014
(“Foster”).
6 Schaefer et al., US 2013/0097840 A1, published April 25, 2013
(“Schaefer”).
Appeal 2019-003923
Application 14/836,202

4
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. 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.”)). After considering the
evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are
not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejections. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections and do so based on the
fact-finding and for the reasons expressed by the Examiner in the Final
Office Action and the Answer. We add the following for emphasis.
Claim 1
The Examiner rejects claim 1, among others, as obvious over the
combination of Liu (as evidenced by Tuckness) and in view of Foster and
Schaefer. Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds that Liu teaches an electrostatic
chuck that includes upper and lower layers with adhesive bonding in the
layers. Id. The layers form an annular slot and an edge seal is positioned
within the annular slot. Id. The Examiner finds that the edge seal includes
an annular body, radially inner and outer surfaces, and top and bottom
surfaces where the radially inner surface is convex, as Tuckness evidences.
Id. The Examiner acknowledges that Liu does not expressly teach a sealing
ring having a radially inner surface that has a continuous convex curvature
or an intermediate adhesive layer between the top and bottom layers. Id. at
2–3. However, the Examiner finds “a change of shape is generally
Appeal 2019-003923
Application 14/836,202

5
considered to be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art,” and Liu
explains alternative shapes may be used. Id. at 3. The Examiner further
finds that Foster teaches a seal having an inner surface with continuous
convex curvature. Id. The Examiner reasons that one skilled in the art
would have had reason to “modify the inner surface of Liu to include a
continuous convex curvature because Foster demonstrates this is an art
recognized functional alternative for the same purpose of sealing to a surface
and Liu has taught [that] the shape may be changed as needed.” Id. The
Examiner also finds that Schaefer teaches an ESC with an intermediate
adhesive layer that joins the top and bottom layers. Id. at 4. The Examiner
reasons that one skilled in the art would have had motive to provide an
additional layer of adhesive “because Schaefer teaches this as an alternative
ESC structure for a top layer bonded to a lower layer which also allows for
the inclusion of heater for temperature control.” Id.
Appellant disagrees with the Examiner’s interpretation of “convex” to
include surfaces like those taught in Tuckness but, nevertheless, Appellant
contends it amended its claim to clarify that the convex curvature is
continuous. Appeal Br. 9–10. Appellant argues that Liu’s o-ring, which the
Examiner identifies as evidence that Liu contemplates using different
shapes, does not meet the additional limitations of the claimed edge ring
required by claim 1. Id. at 10. In particular, Appellant asserts that an o-ring
has “only a single surface” and Liu does not disclose use of an o-ring in
combination with a beveled shape as shown in Figures 1B and D. Id.
Appellant explains that the convex curvature is not “a design choice” but
Appeal 2019-003923
Application 14/836,202

6
rather has particular advantages including to reduce outward radial stress
during compression and to resist deformation. Id. 10–11.
Appellant’s arguments regarding Liu and Tuckness, alone, are not
persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner
relies on Liu to teach nearly all aspects of claim 1, but concedes that Liu
does not expressly describe an inner surface having a continuous convex
curvature. Final Act. 3. However, the Examiner finds that Liu suggests
alternate possible surface shapes may be used. By way of example, Liu
explains that “replaceable sidewall shield 12 is formed of a shape and
material such that the elasticity of replaceable sidewall shield 12 secures it in
place within indentation 10, thereby preventing slippage.” Liu ¶ 26; see also
id. ¶ 33 (identifying both circular and rectangular shapes and explaining that
the shape “is selected such that [the] replaceable sidewall shield . . . will
substantially fill an indentation in an ESC . . . or will substantially cover the
sidewall of the ESC.”). Therefore, the Examiner determines that changing
the shape of inner surface to be a continuous convex curvature would have
been within the ordinary skill level of one practicing in the relevant art.
Final Act. 3.
We further determine that, in the absence of evidence regarding
criticality or unexpected results associated with claimed continuous convex
curvature, the record supports the Examiner’s findings. We recognize
Appellant’s argument that the shape of the seal surface is “not simply a
design choice,” but rather one that has numerous attributable advantages.
Appeal Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 3. But, Appellant has not shown that the
identified advantages produce unexpected results over the prior art.
Appeal 2019-003923
Application 14/836,202

7
Appellant also argues that Foster fails to disclose an edge seal like that
recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 12. Specifically, Appellant contends that
“surface 146 that the Examiner suggests is the inner surface is actually the
surface of backup ring 132 and is adjacent to the outer surface 150 of the
sealing element 108.” Id. at 13. Therefore, Appellant “submits that Foster
fails to disclose an edge seal that includes an annular body including a
radially inner surface.” Id.
On this record, we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of
reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner clarifies that it is
outer surface 150 of Foster that corresponds to the inner surface having a
continuous convex curvature. Ans. 12; compare Fig. 4 (identifying element
310 as “the radial inner surface”, i.e., the surface facing an inward direction)
and Spec. ¶ 41 (“[t]he radially inner surface 310 faces in a radially inwardly
direction”), with Foster, Figs. 1–10 (element 150, that is, the surface facing
an inward direction). As the Examiner explains, it would have been obvious
to modify the surface of Liu “because Foster demonstrates this is an art
recognized functional alternative for the same purpose of sealing to a
surface.” Final Act. 3; see also Foster ¶ 61 (explaining that “more curved or
contoured . . . surfaces . . . allow for a greater mechanical engagement [as]
compared to the more planar or less curved surfaces”). Appellant’s
argument that the Examiner failed to identify a reason to modify Liu with
Foster is unpersuasive because “[e]xpress suggestion to substitute one
equivalent for another need not be present to render such substitution
obvious.” In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301 (CCPA 1982); see also In re
Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Because the applicants
Appeal 2019-003923
Application 14/836,202

8
merely substituted one element known in the art for a known equivalent, this
court affirms [the rejection for obviousness].”). Further, Appellant does not
challenge the Examiner’s findings regarding known alternative structures
taught in Foster. We, therefore, adopt the Examiner’s finding as fact. Cf. In
re Kunzmann, 326 F.2d 424, 425 n.3 (CCPA 1964) (a finding Appellant fails
to show is erroneous may be accepted as fact).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Claim 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and additionally requires
the radially outer surface of the body is generally planar
between a first corner between the top surface and the radially
outer surface and a second corner between the bottom surface
and the radially outer surface;
the top surface of the body is generally planar between a
third corner between the top surface and the radially inner surface
and the first corner between the top surface and the radially outer
surface;
the bottom surface of the body is generally planar between
a fourth corner between the bottom surface and the radially inner
surface and the second corner between the bottom surface and
the radially outer surface; and
the radially inner surface of the body has the continuous
convex curvature between the third corner between the top
surface and the radially inner surface and the fourth corner
between the bottom surface and the radially inner surface.
Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.).
In addition to the findings above with respect to claim 1, the Examiner
further finds that “Liu teaches the top surface and bottom surfaces are
generally planar . . . and the combination as applied teaches the radially
inner surface is convex from the third corner to the fourth corner where the
Appeal 2019-003923
Application 14/836,202

9
convex surface meets the top and bottom surfaces respectively.” Final
Act. 4 (referring to Liu Figs. 1B and 1D, element 12; Foster Fig. 8).
Appellant argues that Liu, teaching use of an o-ring, describes “only a
single continuous curved surface” and not a generally planar outer surface,
top surface, and bottom surface. Appeal Br. 15–16. Appellant further
contends that surface 150 of Foster “is an outer surface not an inner
surface.” Id. at 16. Therefore, Appellant contends neither reference
describes the seal assembly of claim 3.
Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive if reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. Appellant’s argument that the neither Liu nor Foster
independently suggests a seal having a continuous convex inner surface, and
planar top, bottom, and outer surfaces is an attack on the references
individually and not in combination as the Examiner has presented. In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “[T]he test [for
obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those [having] ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981). As the Examiner finds, both Liu and Foster teach a
seal having planar top, bottom, and outside surfaces. Final Act. 4; see also
Liu Figs. 1B, 1D (same); Foster Fig. 8 (same). The Examiner also finds that
Liu describes an o-ring cross section, i.e., a seal that would have a
continuous convex curvature, and Foster depicts sealing surface 150 having
a continuous convex curvature. Final Act. 3–4. And, in light of both Liu’s
(Liu ¶ 26) and Foster’s (Foster ¶ 61, Figs. 1–10) teachings that the shape of
the seal assembly can be adjusted to maintain a functioning seal, we
determine that the record adequately supports the Examiner’s findings.
Appeal 2019-003923
Application 14/836,202

10
Appellant’s argument that surface 150 of Foster refers to an “outer
surface” as opposed to an inner surface is similarly unpersuasive. As noted
above, each of Foster’s surface 150 and the claimed inner surface faces
inwardly regardless of the label Foster provides. Compare Fig. 4
(identifying element 310 as “the radial inner surface”, i.e., the surface facing
an inward direction) and Spec. ¶ 41 (“[t]he radially inner surface 310 faces
in a radially inwardly direction”), with Foster, Figs. 1–10 (element 150, that
is, the surface facing an inward direction). Further, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Foster is applicable “because it is teaching the
surface to seal another surface” may have different shapes, including a
convex surface. Ans. 12.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3.
CONCLUSION
Appellant failed to identify a reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Liu as
evidenced by Tuckness and in view of Foster and Schaefer.
Appellant failed to identify a reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Liu as evidenced by Tuckness, and in view of Foster.
Appellant failed to identify a reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 12 and 14–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Liu as evidenced by Tuckness, and in view of Foster and further in view of
Schaefer.
Appeal 2019-003923
Application 14/836,202

11
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 is
affirmed as summarized below.

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1–10 103

Liu, Tuckness, Foster,
Schaefer 
1–10
11, 13 103

Liu, Tuckness, Foster  11, 13
12, 14–20 103

Liu, Tuckness, Foster,
Schaefer
12, 14–20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

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