APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 25, 2020

2019005769 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 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.
14/713,386 05/15/2015 WILLIAM R. FRUCHTERMAN 21883USA 4032
55649 7590 08/25/2020
Moser Taboada / Applied Materials, Inc.
1030 Broad Street
Suite 203
Shrewsbury, NJ 07702
EXAMINER
BAND, MICHAEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1794
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/25/2020 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):
ataboada@mtiplaw.com
docketing@mtiplaw.com
llinardakis@mtiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM R. FRUCHTERMAN, MARTIN LEE RIKER,
KEITH A. MILLER, and ANTHONY INFANTE
Appeal 2019-005769
Application 14/713,386
Technology Center 1700

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, DONNA M. PRAISS, and BRIAN D. RANGE,
Administrative Patent Judges.

RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5 and 8–12. 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 Applied
Materials, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-005769
Application 14/713,386

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER2
Appellant describes the invention as relating to substrate processing
chambers. Spec. ¶ 2. Appellant states that “the inventors have provided
improved embodiments of apparatus for forming a metal containing layer
with good bottom and sidewall management.” Id. ¶ 6. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A cooled process tool adapter, comprising:
an annular body surrounding a central opening, wherein
the annular body further comprises a substantially planar
uppermost surface and a substantially planar lowermost surface;
an annular groove disposed in the substantially planar
uppermost surface;
an annular groove disposed in the substantially planar
lowermost surface;
a coolant channel disposed in the annular body;
one or more features extending radially inward from the
annular body into the central opening, to facilitate supporting a
process tool within the central opening;
an inlet and an outlet disposed in the annular body and
fluidly coupled to the coolant channel; and
a power connection coupled to the annular body, the
power connection having a terminal extending from the annular
body to couple the annular body to a bias power source.

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:

2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action dated July 10, 2018
(“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed January 28, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer dated May 20, 2019 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed
July 22, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2019-005769
Application 14/713,386

3
Name Reference Date
Rosenstein et al.
(“Rosenstein”)
US 5,690,795 Nov. 25, 1997
Pavloff et al.
(“Pavloff”)
US 7,981,262 B2 July 19, 2011
West et al.
(“West ’927”)
US 9,096,927 B2 Aug. 4, 2015
Miller US 9,605,341 B2 Mar. 28, 2017
Scheible et al.
(“Scheible”)
US 2007/0102286 A1 May 10, 2007
West et al.
(“West”)
US 2013/0056347 A1 Mar. 7, 2013

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains (Ans. 3) the following rejections on appeal:
A. Claims 1–5 and 8–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over West in
view of Rosenstein. Final Act. 2.
B. Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Scheible in view of
Pavloff. Id. at 5.
C. Claims 1–5 and 8–12 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting
as unpatentable over the claims of Miller and Rosenstein. Id. at 8.
D. Claims 1–5 and 8–12 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting
as unpatentable over the claims of West ’927 and Rosenstein. Id. at 9.

OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant 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)
Appeal 2019-005769
Application 14/713,386

4
(“[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 except where we
otherwise indicate below. Thus, where we affirm the Examiner’s rejections,
we do so for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the
Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Rejection A, obviousness over West and Rosenstein. The Examiner
rejects claims 1–5 and 8–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over West in
view of Rosenstein. Final Act. 2. Appellant presents separate arguments for
claim 1 and for dependent claim 2. We limit our discussion to those claims.
Claims 3–5 and 8–11 stand or fall with the claim from which they depend.
With regard to claim 1, the Examiner finds that West teaches a cooled
process tool adapter for a physical vapor deposition (“PVD”) chamber that
comprises, among other things, “annular body [122],[125], one or more
features including a shelf (i.e.[,] cap) [122] extending radially inward from
the annular body [122],[125] into the central opening [124]” and a “power
connection (i.e.[,] electrode) [112] . . . having a terminal extending from the
annular body [122],[125].” Final Act. 2–3 (citing, for example, West Fig. 1).
The Examiner finds that West does not suggest annular grooves in its
uppermost and lowermost surfaces. Id. at 3. The Examiner, however, finds
that Rosenstein teaches such grooves and provides a rationale for
incorporating Rosenstein’s grooves into West. Id. (citing Rosenstein).
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs by applying one prior art
element to two distinct recitations of claim 1. Appeal Br. 7–11. In particular,
Appellant argues that cap 122 of West cannot correspond to both the recited
Appeal 2019-005769
Application 14/713,386

5
“annular body” and recited “one or more features” because these are distinct
claim elements. Appeal Br. 6–7. As a matter of claim construction, we agree
that one physical portion of the prior art apparatus cannot correspond to both
the recited “annular body” and the recited “one or more features” because
claim 1 requires that the “one or more features extend[] radially inward from
the annular body into the central opening.” Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.).
Nothing in claim 1, however, prohibits the “annular body” and “one or more
features” from being different portions of one integral object.
Appellant further argues that claim 1 requires a “terminal extending
from the annular body” and West cannot meet this recitation unless West’s
entire cap is the annular body. Appeal Br. 9–11; Reply Brief 5–8. If
Appellant were correct that West cannot meet this recitation unless West’s
entire cap is claim 1’s recited “annular body,” the cap could not also be the
“one or more features extending radially inward from the annular body.”
Appellant’s argument does not persuade us of error. The Examiner’s
position is that West’s body 125 along with a portion of cap 122 corresponds
to the recited annular body. Ans. 3–6. A different portion of cap 122
corresponds to the recited one or more features extending radially inward
from the annular body. Id. In particular, the Examiner finds that West body
125 along with the rightmost portion of cap 122 extending from body 125 to
the terminal of bias power source 108 corresponds to the recited annular
body. Id. at 5–6 (annotating West Fig. 1). Under this reasoning, West
teaches claim 1’s recited “power connection having a terminal extending
from the annular body.” Under this same reasoning, other portions of cap
122 extend radially inward from the annular body as described above and
correspond to the recited “one or more features.”
Appeal 2019-005769
Application 14/713,386

6
To illustrate, we provide an annotated version of a portion of West
Figure 1 below.

The figure above is an annotated reproduction of the upper portion of West
Figure 1. West Figure 1 depicts a cross sectional view of a process chamber
in accordance with an embodiment of West’s invention. West ¶ 10. Above,
we add ovals to West Figure 1 to indicate portions of the West structure that,
as an example, correspond to claim 1’s “one or more features” under the
Examiner’s analysis. In this example, the remainder of West’s structures 122
and 125, as explained above, correspond to claim 1’s annular body. As
illustrated in the example above, bias power source 108 extends from the
annular body (i.e., the portion of cap 124 below and also to the right of
electrode 112), and, simultaneously, the portions of cap 122 that we mark
with an oval are features that extend radially inward from the annular body
into the central opening.
Because Appellant’s argument does not identify error, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and of claims 8–11 which depend from
claim 1.
Appeal 2019-005769
Application 14/713,386

7
Claim 2 recites, “[t]he cooled process tool adapter of claim 1, wherein
the one or more features include a shelf extending radially inward from the
annular body into the central opening and disposed below an upper surface
of the annular body.” Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). The
Examiner finds that modified West “discloses plating exterior surfaces of the
annular body [122],[125] . . . and therefore the shelf [122] extends radially
inward towards the central opening [124] and below the upper surface
formed by the plating of the annular body [122],[125].” Final Act. 4; see
also Ans. 6–7 (elaborating on this point).
Appellant argues that, under West’s teachings, the portion of cap 122
extending radially inwards would be at the same level of cap 122 with the
plating. Appeal Br. 13–14. Appellant’s argument is persuasive. In particular,
the Examiner has not adequately explained how West teaches or suggests the
“disposed below an upper surface of the annular body” recitation of claim 2.
The Examiner cites only West’s paragraph 22 to support the Examiner’s
claim 2 position. Final Act. 4; Ans. 6–7. At paragraph 22, West states, “[i]n
some embodiments, exterior surfaces of the body 125 and the cap 122 may
be silver plated.” West ¶ 22. West does not, however, teach or suggest that
only a portion of body 125 and cap 122 would be plated so that a portion of
cap 122 (i.e., the portion of cap 122 that would correspond to the “features”
of claims 1 and 2) would be disposed below an upper surface of the annular
body as claim 2 requires. We, thus, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 2. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3–5 for
the same reason because those claims depend from claim 2.
Rejection B, obviousness over Scheible in view of Pavloff. The
Examiner rejects claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Scheible
Appeal 2019-005769
Application 14/713,386

8
in view of Pavloff. Final Act. 5. Claim 12 recites, among other things, “a
shelf extending radially inward from the annular body” and “a plurality of
through holes disposed through the shelf.” Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.)
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner finds that Scheible depicts a
shelf [360] extending radially inward from annular body [330]. Final Act. 5–
6 (citing Scheible). The Examiner determines that Scheible depicts one
“through hole” through shelf [360] and provides reason why a person of skill
in the art would combine the teachings of Pavloff to reach multiple through
holes. Id. (citing Scheible and Pavloff).
In the Appeal Brief, Appellant argued that Scheible’s ledge 360
extends radially outward rather than radially inward and thus does not meet
claim 12’s recitations. Appeal Br. 13–15. In response, the Examiner clarifies
(or modifies) the prior rejection by annotating Scheible Figure 2 by shading
a portion of the figure in grey and finding that the greyed area corresponds
to claim 12’s shelf extending radially inward. Ans. 7–8. The Examiner,
however, does not identify any through holes within the greyed-section and
does not provide a rationale as to why a person of skill in the art would add
through holes to the greyed-section. Reply Br. 12. Because the Examiner
does not explain how the through hole recitations of claim 12 would have
been met under the Answer’s obviousness analysis, we do not sustain this
rejection.
Rejections C and D, nonstatutory double patenting. The Examiner
rejects claims 1–5 and 8–12 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting
as unpatentable over the claims of Miller and Rosenstein. Final Act. 8. The
Examiner also rejects claims 1–5 and 8–12 on the ground of nonstatutory
Appeal 2019-005769
Application 14/713,386

9
double patenting as unpatentable over the claims of West ’927 and
Rosenstein. Id. at 9.
Appellant argues that the Examiner failed to articulate reasoning to
support these rejections. Appeal Br. 16–17. We disagree. For each of these
rejections, the Examiner finds that Appellant’s claims are not patentably
distinct as compared to the claims of the cited art. Final Act. 8–9. The
Examiner finds numerous elements in common between Appellant’s claims
and the prior art claims and provides a rationale for combining the art’s
teachings. Id. Appellant has the burden, on appeal, to identify error in the
Examiner’s rejection. Frye, 94 USPQ2d at 1075. Appellant’s argument here
is too general to meet that burden. In particular, Appellant makes no
technical or other argument on the merits, and Appellant does not attempt to
draw a distinction between the cited art and Appellant’s claims. We, thus,
sustain these rejections.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 8–11 103 West, Rosenstein 1, 8–11 2–5
12 103 Scheible, Pavloff 12
1–5, 8–12
Nonstatutory Double
Patenting (Miller,
Rosenstein)
1–5, 8–12
1–5, 8–12
Nonstatutory Double
Patenting (West ’927,
Rosenstein)
1–5, 8–12
Overall
Outcome 1–5, 8–12

Appeal 2019-005769
Application 14/713,386

10
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2018).

AFFIRMED