Applied Materials, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 28, 20202020001412 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/957,440 12/02/2015 Viachslav BABAYAN 023427US 6244 44257 7590 12/28/2020 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPLIED MATERIALS 24 GREENWAY PLAZA SUITE 1600 HOUSTON, TX 77046 EXAMINER LEE, AIDEN Y ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1718 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/28/2020 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): 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 VIACHSLAV BABAYAN, QIWEI LIANG, TOBIN KAUFMAN-OSBORN, LUDOVIC GODET, and SRINIVAS D. NEMANI Appeal 2020-001412 Application 14/957,440 Technology Center 1700 Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges. WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s March 29, 2019 decision to finally reject claims 1–4, 6, 9–12, and 15–18 (“Final Act.”). We have jurisdiction under 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 Applied Materials, Inc. (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal 2020-001412 Application 14/957,440 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s disclosure is directed to a semiconductor processing apparatus (Abstract). As shown in Figures 1 and 2, reproduced below, processing chamber 100 includes chamber body 102 and lid 106, which define interior volume 108. Lid 106 is configured to support housing 134 (id.). Substrate support 126 is disposed in interior volume 108 (id.). Vaporizer 114 is coupled to a cap, and has an outlet open to the interior volume 108 of the processing chamber 100. Vaporizer 114 is configured to deliver a precursor gas to a processing region defined between vaporizer 114 and substrate support 126 (id.). Heater 112 is disposed adjacent to vaporizer 114, and is configured to heat vaporizer 114. Figures 1 and 2 show general views of the processing chamber disclosed in the application on appeal. The claimed processing chamber also includes heat shield 210, shown in Figure 2 above, which can be moved by actuator 212 to enclose a surface of substrate support 126. Appeal 2020-001412 Application 14/957,440 3 Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A processing chamber, comprising: a chamber body and a lid, the chamber body and the lid defining an interior volume of the processing chamber, the lid supporting a housing, the housing comprising: a vaporizer; an internal heat shield spaced from the chamber body, the internal heat shield surrounding the vaporizer and the internal heat shield surrounding an outlet port of the vaporizer; a heater disposed adjacent to the vaporizer; and a first actuator coupled to the vaporizer and the internal heat shield, the first actuator operable to move the vaporizer and the internal heat shield to a position that encloses a surface of a substrate support disposed in the interior volume of the processing chamber, the enclosed surface and the internal heat shield forming a processing region that is open to the outlet port of the vaporizer. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Gruenwald et al. US 5,009,738 April 23, 1991 Hu et al. US 5,968,594 October 19, 1999 Yamamuka et al. US 6,512,885 B1 January 28, 2003 Bailey et al. US 7,009,281 B2 March 7, 2006 Toshima US 7,695,233 B2 April 13, 2010 Miller et al. US 7,699,932 B2 April 20, 2010 Nijhawan et al. US 2007/0254100 A1 November 1, 2007 Hopper US 2010/0255181 A1 October 7, 2010 REJECTIONS 1. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hu in view of Gruenwald. Appeal 2020-001412 Application 14/957,440 4 2. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hu in view of Gruenwald, and further in view of Nijhawan. 3. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hu in view of Gruenwald, and further in view of Bailey. 4. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hu in view of Gruenwald and Bailey, and further in view of Miller. 5. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hu in view of Gruenwald, and further in view of Hopper. 6. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hu in view of Gruenwald, and further in view of Yamamuka. 7. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hu in view of Gruenwald and Yamamuka, and further in view of Nijhawan. 8. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hu in view of Gruenwald and Yamamuka, and further in view of Bailey. 9. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hu in view of Gruenwald, and further in view of Toshima. 10. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hu in view of Gruenwald and Toshima, and further in view of Nijhawan. 11. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hu in view of Gruenwald and Toshima, and further in view of Bailey. Appeal 2020-001412 Application 14/957,440 5 12. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hu in view of Gruenwald, Bailey, and Toshima, and further in view of Miller. DISCUSSION Claim 1. The Examiner’s findings with respect to claim 1 are set forth at pages 4–6 of the Final Action. The Examiner finds that Hu discloses the elements of claim 1, except that Hu does not disclose the internal heat shield or the actuator as described in the claim (Final Act. 4–5). The Examiner also finds that Hu teaches that its system imposes relatively reduced pressure and/or elevated temperature values to allow vaporization of the solution (Final Act. 4). The Examiner finds that this feature corresponds to the claimed heater (Final Act. 4). Appellant argues that Hu does not disclose or suggest a heater disposed adjacent to the vaporizer (Appeal Br. 12). According to Appellant, the only mention that Hu makes about a heater is that, with reference to Hu’s Figure 1, Hu teaches: “[t]he temperature and pressure regulation system 150 is preparation of mixing the liquid ammonia solution. The configured [sic] according to any of the many arrangements known to those skilled in the art and generally includes any or all of an automatic controller, pressure and temperature sensors, a vacuum source, a refrigeration source, a heat source, vacuum or coolant jacketing around the solution container 115 and the conduit 125.” (Appeal Br. 12, quoting Hu, 5:9–15): Appeal 2020-001412 Application 14/957,440 6 Hu’s Figure 1 schematically illustrates a chemical vapor deposition system in accordance with its disclosure. Appellant argues that a heat jacket around conduit 125 or solution container 115 would not be “adjacent” to vaporizer 130 and, therefore, would not meet the claim requirement of “a heater disposed adjacent to the vaporizer” (Appeal Br. 13). This argument is not persuasive because the arrows shown above in Hu’s Figure 1 from the “temperature and pressure regulation system” box demonstrate that a heat jacket could be right next to (i.e. adjacent to) vaporizer 130, particularly if it were wrapped around the lower portion of conduit 125. Appellant also argues that Hu does not teach or suggest that Hu discloses a housing which “comprises” the heater, as recited in claim 1 (Appeal Br. 13). In particular, Appellant contends that both conduit 125 and solution container 115 “are expressly disclosed to be outside the housing, unlike the vaporizer 130” (id.). In this regard, Appellant appears to be relying on Hu’s disclosure that the vaporization head 130 may be located inside or outside reaction chamber 140 (which corresponds to the claimed housing) (Hu, 4:25–33), which implicitly makes clear that both conduit 125 Appeal 2020-001412 Application 14/957,440 7 and solution container 115 are outside reaction chamber 140. This conclusion is supported by the arrangement of the components as shown in Figure 1 above, which shows conduit 125 and solution container 115 outside reaction chamber 140. In response, the Examiner provides a detailed explanation of why Hu’s heater would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as possibly being located “adjacent” to the vaporizer (Ans. 10–12). This explanation is persuasive, insofar as it shows why Hu suggests a heater located adjacent to the vaporizer. However, it does not provide reasoning or evidence of how Hu’s “housing” (reaction chamber 140) comprises the heater which, as noted above, is shown and described by Hu as being located outside the housing. The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness based on an inherent or explicit disclosure of the claimed subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.”). To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In this instance, the evidence of record does not support the Examiner’s determination that Hu teaches or suggests a housing comprising a heater (though it does suggest a heater located adjacent to a vaporizer). Appeal 2020-001412 Application 14/957,440 8 Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 1. Because each of the remaining rejections relies on the same erroneous finding that Hu would have rendered obvious a housing comprising a heater, we also reverse the remaining rejections. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1 103 Hu, Gruenwald 1 2, 3 103 Hu, Gruenwald, Nijhawan 2, 3 4 103 Hu, Gruenwald, Bailey 4 6 103 Hu, Gruenwald, Bailey, Miller 6 9 103 Hu, Gruenwald, Hopper 9 10 103 Hu, Gruenwald,, Yamamuka 10 11 103 Hu, Gruenwald, Yamamuka, Nijhawan 11 12 103 Hu, Gruenwald, Yamamuka, Bailey 12 15 103 Hu, Gruenwald, Toshima 15 16 103 Hu, Gruenwald, Toshima, Nijhawan 16 17 103 Hu, Gruenwald, Toshima, Bailey 17 Appeal 2020-001412 Application 14/957,440 9 18 103 Hu, Gruenwald, Toshima, Bailey, Miller 18 Overall Outcome 1–4, 6, 9– 12, 15–18 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation