Alan H. Ouye et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 25, 2019

13253627 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 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.
13/253,627 10/05/2011 Alan H. Ouye 13644US 9384
44257 7590 09/25/2019
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - Applied Materials
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
EXAMINER
BENNETT, CHARLEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1718
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2019 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 ALAN H. OUYE, GRAEME SCOTT, KEVEN KAISHENG YU,
and MICHAEL N. GRIMBERGEN
____________

Appeal 2019-000208
Application 13/253,627
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRIAN D. RANGE, MICHAEL G. McMANUS,
and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1, 3–5, 8, 9, and 14–16 of
Application 13/253,627 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 103 and 112. Final Act. (Nov.
27, 2017) 4–13. Appellant1 seeks reversal of the rejections pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, 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 Applied
Materials, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-000208
Application 13/253,627

2

BACKGROUND
The present application generally relates to semiconductor substrate
processing systems that employ a plasma processing chamber. Spec. ¶¶ 2,
10. The plasma processing chamber of the present application includes RF
generating coils positioned over the lid of the chamber. Id. ¶ 10. During
operation, the RF generating coils emit energy to maintain a plasma formed
from the process gases in the chamber. Id. ¶ 25. The system additionally
includes a lid heater assembly coupled to the chamber lid. Id. ¶ 10. The lid
heater assembly includes a heated ring having a diameter at least as large as
the coil assembly so that the RF power may couple to gases in the
processing chamber without the “need to intersect with the heated ring.” Id.
¶ 34.
A portion of Figure 2 of the Application is reproduced below:

Appeal 2019-000208
Application 13/253,627

3

Figure 2 of the Application shows a plasma processing chamber 100 having
a lid heater assembly 190. Id. ¶ 21. Coil elements 113 are positioned above
the lid to maintain the plasma 106 formed from the process gasses. Id. ¶ 25.
It can be seen that heating element 198 is positioned at the outer portion of
the lid heater assembly.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with certain limitations bolded for emphasis:
1. A lid heater assembly for a plasma processing system
having a coil assembly positioned above the lid heater
assembly, comprising:
a thermally conductive base, wherein the thermally
conductive base is a planar ring defining an inner opening,
wherein the inner opening has a diameter larger than an
outer diameter of the coil assembly;
a heating element disposed on the thermally conductive
base;
an insulated center core disposed across the inner
opening of the thermally conductive base;
a thermal insulator disposed over the heating element;
and
an RF shield which is a ring without a gap and is
disposed between and in contact with the heating element and
the thermal insulator.
Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
Appeal 2019-000208
Application 13/253,627

4

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:2
1. Claims 1, 3–5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, for failure to particularly point out and distinctly claim
the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention.
Final Act. 4.
2. Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Willwerth et al.3 in view of Qian et al.,4 and
Chen et al.5 Id. at 5–7.
3. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Willwerth in view of Qian, Chen, and Collins et al.6 Id. at 8.
4. Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Willwerth in view of Qian, Chen, Collins, and O’Carroll et
al.7 Id. at 8–9.
5. Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Willwerth, Qian, and Chen. Id. at 9–12.
6. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Willwerth, Qian, Chen, and O’Carroll. Id. at
12–13.

2 We cite to the pre-AIA versions of 35 U.S.C. because the effective filing
date for the application from which this appeal is taken is before the
effective date of the AIA legislation of March 16, 2013.
3 US 2009/0236315 A1, published Sept. 24, 2009 (“Willwerth”).
4 US 6,447,636 B1, issued Sept. 10, 2002 (“Qian”).
5 US 2002/0185228 A1, published Dec. 12, 2002 (“Chen”).
6 US 6,238,588 B1, issued May 29, 2001 (“Collins”).
7 US 2002/0084424 A1, published July 4, 2002 (“O’Carroll”).
Appeal 2019-000208
Application 13/253,627

5

DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3–5, and 8 as
indefinite. Id. at 4. The Examiner determines that claim 1 is indefinite due
to the recitation of a “coil assembly” in the preamble and the body of the
claim. Id. The Examiner reasons that the claim is stated to be directed to a
“lid heater assembly” and the coil assembly components “are not a part of
the lid heater assembly.” Id. In the Answer, the Examiner further asserts
that “the heated lid assembly, which does not include the coil assembly,
cannot be limited or defined by a non-existing structure which has no
boundaries/limitless boundaries (‘outer diameter of the coil assembly’) in the
body of the claim (outside the preamble).” Answer 12.
In its Appeal Brief, Appellant argues that “[t]he outer diameter of the
coil assembly is used as a reference to the size of the diameter of the inner
opening.” Appeal Br. 8. As a result, Appellant reasons, “the component
‘coil assembly’ is not an element to the lid heater assembly, it is merely a
reference used to define the diameter of the inner opening.” Id.
During prosecution, a claim is examined for compliance with
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, by determining whether the claim meets
threshold requirements of clarity and precision. In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d
1262, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting MPEP § 2173.02). A claim should be
rejected as indefinite when it is amenable to two or more plausible claim
constructions. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“There
are good reasons why unnecessary incoherence and ambiguity in claim
constructions should be disapproved”).
The Examiner does not determine that one of ordinary skill in the art
would not understand the meaning of the term “coil assembly.” In any case,
Appeal 2019-000208
Application 13/253,627

6

the Specification and figures give adequate guidance as to the scope of “coil
assembly.” Spec. ¶¶ 10, 12; Figs. 2, 4. Rather, the Examiner determines
that the preamble (“[a] lid heater assembly”) excludes the coil assembly
(separate from the lid heater) from the scope of the claim.
This is not consistent with the law of claim construction. In IMS
Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
the Federal Circuit construed a similar preamble not to exclude a recited
limitation from the scope of the claim. There, the claim at issue (claim 1)
included a preamble reciting “[a] programmable microcomputer control
apparatus for controlling the relative motion between a tool and a workpiece
comprising . . . .” Id. at 1427. The patent owner argued that the district
court had improperly limited the claim to a “control system for machine
tools rather than an entire machine tool apparatus.” Id. at 1434. The Court
agreed as follows:
The phrase “control apparatus” in the preamble merely gives a
descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the
claim that completely set forth the invention. Its use does not
limit the claims, as Haas contends, to a control apparatus that is
separate from the machine tool.

Id. at 1434.
Similarly, the term “lid heater” does not negate the “coil assembly”
limitation. Accordingly, we determine that Appellant has shown reversible
error in the rejection of claims 1, 3–5, and 8 as indefinite.

Rejection 2. The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 3 as obvious over
Willwerth in view of Qian and Chen. Final Act. 5–8. The Examiner finds
that Willwerth and Qian teach each element of claims 1 and 3 except “the
Appeal 2019-000208
Application 13/253,627

7

inner opening has a diameter larger than an outer diameter of the coil
assembly.” Id. at 7. The Examiner finds that “Chen discloses a coil
assembly (24 [coil], Fig. 1) being surrounded by a conductive base (34
[metal shield]) having an inner diameter somewhat greater than the inner
diameter of chamber wall (12) for the purpose of defining the boundary for
the electromagnetic fields generated by the coil.” Id. The Examiner further
finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify
the teachings of Willwerth and Qian “to incorporate the diameter
configuration of Chen to the coil assembly and inner diameter configuration
of the conductive base taught by Willwerth in view of Qian” so as “to define
the boundary for the electromagnetic fields generated by the coil.” Id.
In the Answer, the Examiner further describes the basis of the
rejection.
Chen is not relied upon to teach a thermally conductive base
having an inner diameter, as Willwerth already teaches a
thermally conductive base having an inner diameter. Chen is
relied upon to teach the concept of having the thermally
conductive base (34) have an inner diameter somewhat greater
than the inner diameter of the chamber wall (12) as explicitly
taught in para. [0036] of Chen (as previously rejected), which
renders the base inner diameter to surround the coil as shown in
Fig. 1 of Chen. Chen teaches this for the purpose of defining
the boundary for the electromagnetic fields generated by the
coil, and this motivation is analogous to the present invention’s
motivation, taught in the application specification para[s].
[0036] and [0042], where it states that the reason for the outer
diameter surrounded by inner opening inner diameter is to
avoid interference with coupling between antenna and plasma.

Answer 13–14.
Appeal 2019-000208
Application 13/253,627

8

Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
been led to the claimed configuration by the teachings of Chen and
Willwerth. Appeal Br. 9–11. Portions of figures from Chen and Willwerth
are reproduced from Appellant’s opening brief below.

The excerpt of Figure 1 of Chen (left) shows a vacuum plasma processor
including coil 24 positioned above chamber 10 and shield 34 which is stated
to “decouple[] electromagnetic fields originating in coil 24 from the
surrounding environment.” Chen ¶¶ 30–36. The excerpt of Figure 1 (right)
of Willwerth shows a plasma processing chamber including shielded lid
heater 180 positioned on lid 120. Willwerth ¶¶ 25–26. “Above the lid 120
is disposed an antenna 112 comprising one or more inductor coil elements.”
Id. ¶ 29.
Appellant contends that, if one were to combine the teachings of
Willwerth and Chen “the shield 34 would be position[ed] outward of the lid
and the lid heater of Willwerth because the shield 34 of Chen is for shielding
to the outside environment, and not for shielding a lid heater.” Appeal Br.
10. Appellant further argues that “a person skilled in the art would not be
motivated to modify either the heater 180 or the antenna 112 so the inner
Appeal 2019-000208
Application 13/253,627

9

diameter of the heater 180 is configured to circumscribe the outer diameter
of the antenna 112.” Id. at 11.
In its Reply Brief, Appellant argues that “a person skilled in the art
would at most add shield 34 to the chamber of Willwerth in the position
taught by Chen.” As a result, “the shield 34 would be positioned outward of
the lid and the lid heater of Willwerth because the shield 34 of Chen is for
shielding to the outside environment, and not for shielding a lid heater.”
Reply Br. 4 (emphasis omitted).
The point at issue is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have had reason to modify the device of Willwerth such that shielded
lid heater 180 is located at the periphery of the lid rather than in the position
taught by Willwerth (Fig. 1). The Examiner proposes that one would have
done so to “defin[e] the boundary for the electromagnetic fields.” Answer
13. The Examiner, however, does not cite any support in the references (or
elsewhere) that the shielded lid heater of Willwerth would have been
suitable for such function. Absent such a showing, we cannot conclude that
a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify
Willwerth as proposed by the Examiner. In view of the foregoing, Appellant
has shown error in the rejection of claims 1 and 3 as obvious.

Rejections 3–6. The Examiner rejects claims 4, 5, 8, 9, and 14–16 as
obvious over the teachings of Willwerth and Chen in combination with other
references as detailed above. Final Act. 8–13. Appellant argues that the
rejections of claims 4, 5, 8, 9, and 14–16 should be reversed for the same
reasons articulated with regard to Rejection 2. As we have found such
Appeal 2019-000208
Application 13/253,627

10

arguments to be persuasive, we determine that Appellant has shown
reversible error in this regard.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and
the Examiner’s Answer as well as those reasons set forth above, we
determine as follows:
Claim(s)
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, and 8 § 112, second
paragraph
1, 3–5, and 8
1 and 3 § 103(a) Willwerth,
Qian, and Chen
1 and 3
4 § 103(a) Willwerth,
Qian, Chen, and
Collins
4
5 and 8 § 103(a) Willwerth,
Qian, Chen, Collins,
and O’Carroll
5 and 8
9 and 16 § 103(a) Willwerth,
Qian, and Chen
9 and 16
14 and 15 § 103(a) Willwerth,
Qian, Chen, and
O’Carroll
14 and 15
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–5, 8, 9,
and 14–16

REVERSED