Liu, Cheng-Hsiung et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 19, 2019

14198651 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 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.
14/198,651 03/06/2014 Cheng-Hsiung Liu P20121361US01 9703
108233 7590 12/19/2019
Cooper Legal Group LLC
6505 Rockside Road Suite 330
Independence, OH 44131
EXAMINER
CHEN, KEATH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2019 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):
docketing@cooperlegalgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHENG-HSIUNG LIU,
CHUN-HAO HSU, YU-YUN PENG,
CHIH-YUAN YAO, CHIA-I SHEN,
and KENG-CHU LIN
__________

Appeal 2019-003789
Application 14/198,651
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 final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4–6, 9, 11–15, 17–19, and 21–26. Claims 3, 7, 8, 10, 16, and 20
have been canceled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

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 Taiwan
Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal 2019-003789
Application 14/198,651

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is directed to chemical vapor deposition (CVD),
which involves placing a wafer in a deposition chamber defined within a
CVD assembly (Spec. ¶ 1). The Specification describes that a precursor is
introduced into the CVD assembly’s deposition chamber to expose a surface
of the wafer to the precursor, thereby forming a thin film on the surface of
the wafer (id.).
Claim 1 is illustrative (emphasis added):
1. A pumping liner usable in a chemical vapor deposition
(CVD) assembly, comprising:
an annular body; and
an array of liner apertures defined within and penetrating
radially through the annular body, wherein:
a first liner aperture of the array of liner apertures
occupies a first area of an outermost surface of the annular
body,
a second liner aperture of the array of liner apertures
occupies a second area of the outermost surface of the annular
body,
the first liner aperture and the second liner aperture have
a same shape,
the second area is equal to the first area,
the first liner aperture and the second liner aperture are
on diametrically opposite sides of the annular body,
a center of the first liner aperture is spaced a first
distance from a top surface of the annular body,
a center of the second liner aperture is spaced a second
distance, different than the first distance, from the top surface
of the annular body, and
distances between the top surface of the annular body
and a center of each aperture gradually increase for every liner
Appeal 2019-003789
Application 14/198,651

3
aperture of the array of liner apertures between the first liner
aperture and the second liner aperture such that, for each pair
of adjacent liner apertures between the first liner aperture and
the second liner aperture:
a distance between the top surface of the annular body
and a center of an aperture of the pair closest to the first liner
aperture is less than a distance between the top surface of the
annular body and a center of an aperture of the pair furthest
from the first liner aperture.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claim App.) (emphasis added).
Appellant appeals the following rejection:
1. Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 9, 11–15, 17–19, and 21–26 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yang et al. (US
2002/0045362 A1, published Apr. 18, 2002, “Yang”) in view of
Komiya et al. (US 2003/0094135 A1, published May 22, 2003,
“Komiya”) (Final Act. 3–13).
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–6, 9,
11–15, 17–19, and 21–26 for the reasons presented by Appellant. We add
the following.
Appellant’s arguments for reversal of the Examiner’s rejection of each
of the instant claims focus on limitations recited in independent claim 1 (see
Appeal Br. 4–13). We select claim 1 as representative of claims 2, 4–6, 9,
11–15, 17–19, and 21–26. =
Appeal 2019-003789
Application 14/198,651

4
The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding Yang and Komiya
are located on pages 3–13 of the Final Office Action and pages 9–12 of the
Answer.
Yang’s Figure 5, reproduced below, illustrates a cross-sectional side
view of a portion of a semiconductor wafer processing chamber:

Yang’s Figure 5 illustrates a semiconductor wafer processing chamber
including pumping plate 85; vertical annular first stepped portion 464 that
forms a circumferential edge of a longitudinal wall to face plate 25; and gas
holes 490 (Yang ¶¶ 65–66).
The Examiner finds that Yang’s annular portion 464 teaches each
limitation of the pumping liner comprising an annular body having an array
of liner apertures recited in claim 1, with the exception that Yang does not
teach that:
(a center of the second liner aperture is spaced a second
distance), different than the first distance, (from the top surface
of the annular body),
distances between the top surface of the annular body and
a center of each aperture gradually increase for every liner
aperture or the array of liner apertures between the first liner
Appeal 2019-003789
Application 14/198,651

5
aperture and the second liner aperture such that, for each pair of
adjacent liner apertures between the first liner aperture and the
second liner aperture:
a distance between the top surface of the annular body
and a center of an aperture of the pair closest to the first liner
aperture is less than a distance between the top surface of the
annular body and a center of an aperture of the pair furthest
from the first liner aperture.
(Final Act. 7–8 (indentations added); see also id. at 3–4).
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s assertion that the claim
limitations which are missing from Yang are depicted in the Specification’s
Figure 7 (Ans. 11; see generally Reply Br.).
Figure 7 of the Specification, reproduced below, illustrates the
claimed pumping liner:

The Specification’s Figure 7 illustrates liner apertures 306, which vary
in distance from the top surface 516 of pumping liner 318 (Spec. ¶ 28).
According to the Specification, substantially uniform gas flow in
communication with pumping port 326 occurs among the different groups of
apertures 706, 708, 710 to promote formation of a substantially uniform
layer of thin film on the surface of wafer 304 (not shown) (id.).
Appeal 2019-003789
Application 14/198,651

6
The Examiner finds that Komiya’s porous baffle plate, along with a
gas process chamber, teaches or suggests the limitations missing from Yang
(Final Act. 9–10).
Komiya’s Figure 14, reproduced below, illustrates the structure of a
gas process chamber on which a baffle plate is mounted:

Komiya’s Figure 14 illustrates schematic views of a semiconductor
wafer processing chamber wherein the conductance of gas flow through
exhaust slit 35, for penetrating the area surrounding wafer 1, is adjusted by
varying slit 35 width and baffle plate 33 thickness in the circumferential
direction (Komiya ¶ 173; see also Fig. 13). The Examiner finds Komiya
discloses that “gradual change of each attribute” in the porous baffles and
gas process chambers leads to “uniform exhaust without depending on
process conditions” (Final Act. 10 (citing Komiya Abstract; Figs. 6, 7, 11–
20; ¶ 173)).
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
to have increased/adjusted the distance between [Yang’s] gas
hole 490 that is closer to the pump side to reduce the
conductance at the pump side relative to the gas hole 490 at
[the] diametrically opposite side of the pumping liner [and],
Appeal 2019-003789
Application 14/198,651

7
furthermore, to have other holes 490 in between gradually
changing height, as taught by [Komiya], for the purpose of
uniform exhaust without depending on process conditions
(Final Act. 10 (citing Komiya ¶ 173; Abstract; Figs. 13, 14)) (emphasis
added); See also Yang Fig. 5.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has failed to demonstrate that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify
Yang’s gas holes 490, which are in a curved surface of pumping plate 85, in
view of Komiya’s exhaust slit 35, which is disposed on a circular top surface
of baffle plate 33 (Appeal Br. 12). In particular, Appellant argues
that the conspicuous lack of any embodiment in Komiya
teaching or suggesting that a plurality of holes may be shifted,
while describing numerous other embodiments that vary holes
in other manners, suggests that the inventors in Komiya (who
are presumably at least people of ordinary skill in the art) did
not contemplate an embodiment in which a plurality of holes
are shifted [vertically] as claimed
(id. at 8–9; see also Reply Br. 3). Appellant asserts that “Komiya is silent
with respect to varying the positions of gas holes relative to the top surface
of a pumping plate based upon the proximity of the gas holes to a pumping
port” (Reply Br. 3).
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive.
It is well understood that “[r]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot
be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The
fact that a reference may be modified to reflect features of the claimed
invention would not have made the modification, and hence the claimed
Appeal 2019-003789
Application 14/198,651

8
invention, obvious unless the prior art, knowledge of a person having
ordinary skill in the art, or the nature of the problem to be solved suggested
the desirability of such modification. In re Mills, 916 F.2d 680, 682 (Fed.
Cir. 1990).
In this case, the Examiner has not provided findings or reasoning
supported by adequate facts to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have pursued varying positions of gas holes relative to the top
surface of a pumping plate based upon the proximity of the gas holes to a
pumping port. For example, Komiya discloses several embodiments that
adjust conductance to obtain uniform exhaust by differing the amount of
area occupied by gas holes in a pumping plate (see, e.g., Komiya Figs. 6, 7).
Komiya’s Figure 13 and 14, furthermore, depict a single gas exhaust slit 35
varied in the circumferential direction (see also id. ¶ 173). The Examiner
has not explained why the ordinarily skilled artisan would have replaced
Komiya’s circumferentially-adjusted exhaust slit in modifying Yang’s
plurality of liner apertures to shift vertically. Thus, the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness based upon articulated
reasoning with rational underpinnings.
On this record, we reverse the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection.
Appeal 2019-003789
Application 14/198,651

9
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–6, 9,
11–15, 17–19,
21–26
103(a) Yang, Komiya
1, 2, 4–6, 9,
11–15, 17–
19, 21–26
REVERSED