Applied Materials, Inc. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 22, 2020

2020001581 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 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.
14/785,009 10/16/2015 Umesh M. Kelkar 020595USAP 8359
67251 7590 12/22/2020
SERVILLA WHITNEY LLC/AMT
33 WOOD AVE SOUTH
SUITE 830
ISELIN, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
DHINGRA, RAKESH KUMAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/22/2020 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):
docket@dsiplaw.com
hservilla@dsiplaw.com
lmurphy@dsiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte UMESH M. KELKAR, KALLOL BERA,
KARTHIK RAMANATHAN, GARRY K. KWONG, and
JOSEPH YUDOVSKY
Appeal 2020-001581
Application 14/785,009
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
MICHAEL G. MCMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed October 16, 2015 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action mailed January 18,
2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed August 19, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”);
Examiner’s Answer mailed November 1, 2019 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief
filed December 27, 2019 (“Reply Br.”). The pages of the Reply Brief
are not numbered. Thus, our reference to pages therein are based on
consecutive numbering of the pages beginning with the title page as page 1.
Appeal 2020-001581
Application 14/785,009

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 6–8, and 10–20.3 Appeal Br. 6.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The Specification states the invention relates to an apparatus and
methods for controlling the temperature of a substrate during processing
including incorporating linear lamps to uniformly control the temperature of
a susceptor assembly. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter (Appeal Br., Claims Appendix 32):
1. A processing chamber comprising:
a gas distribution assembly;
a susceptor assembly below the gas distribution assembly,
the susceptor assembly having a disk-shape including a top
surface and a bottom surface defining a thickness, the top surface
including at least one recess surface to support a wafer;
a drive shaft supporting the susceptor assembly to rotate
the susceptor assembly;
a plurality of linear lamps positioned beneath the susceptor
assembly, the plurality of linear lamps separated into a plurality
of zones; and
a controller connected to the plurality of linear lamps to
provide power independently to each of the zones of linear
lamps, wherein each of the linear lamps has an electrode on at

2 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies Applied Materials, Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 4.
3 Claims 4 and 5 were withdrawn from consideration in the Final Action.
Final Act. 2. Claim 9 was cancelled in the Amendment/Response filed April
17, 2019. See Appeal Br. 15.
Appeal 2020-001581
Application 14/785,009

3
least one end of the lamp, the electrode bending downward away
from the bottom surface of the susceptor assembly.
Claims 11 and 20 are also independent and recite processing chambers
having lamps with electrodes bending downward away from the bottom
surface of the susceptor assembly. Id. at 33, 35.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
McNeilly US 3,623,712 Nov. 30, 1971
Robinson US 4,836,138 June 6, 1989
Mahawili US 5,951,896 Sept. 14, 1999
Stevens US 2002/0007797 A1 Jan. 24, 2002
Shigeoka US 2004/0112885 A1 June 17, 2004
Suzuki US 2008/0219650 A1 Sept. 11, 2008
Aggarwal US 2009/0101633 A1 Apr. 23, 2009
Dietl US 2009/0217875 A1 Sept. 3, 2009
Murakawa US 2015/0361553 A1 Dec. 17, 2015

REJECTIONS4
1. Claims 1, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dietl, Aggarwal, and Shigeoka. Final
Act. 4–8.

4 Claims 9, 16, and 17 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in the Final
Action. Final Act. 2–3. As indicated in FN3 supra, claim 9 has been
cancelled. Regarding the rejection of claims 16 and 17, although the
Examiner does not expressly indicate in the Advisory Action mailed May 9,
2019 or in the Answer that this rejection has been withdrawn, the Examiner
acknowledges these claims have been amended to depend from claim 11.
See Advisory Action, Continuation of Box 14; Ans. 9; Response filed April
17, 2010 4–5. Because the Examiner’s rejection of these claims appears to
Appeal 2020-001581
Application 14/785,009

4
2. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Dietl, Aggarwal, Shigeoka, and McNeilly. Final Act. 8–9.
3. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Dietl, Aggarwal, Shigeoka and Murakawa. Final Act. 9.
4. Claims 8 and 16–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dietl, Aggarwal, Shigeoka, Robinson, and
Stevens. Final Act. 10–13.
5. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dietl, Aggarwal, Shigeoka, and Mahawili.
Final Act. 13–14.
6. Claims 11–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dietl, Aggarwal, Shigeoka, Robinson, and
Stevens. Final Act. 14–16.
7. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dietl, Aggarwal, Shigeoka, Robinson,
Stevens, and Suzuki. Final Act. 17–19.
8. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dietl, Aggarwal, Shigeoka, Robinson,
Stevens, and Suzuki. Final Act. 19–21.
9. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dietl, Aggarwal, Shigeoka, Robinson,
Stevens, and Suzuki. Final Act. 22–24.

be based on the lack of antecedent basis for the “two u-shaped lamps”
recited in claims 16 and 17, and claim 11 recites “two u-shaped lamps,” we
treat the rejection of claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as having been
withdrawn.
Appeal 2020-001581
Application 14/785,009

5
OPINION
Rejection 1
Appellant does not present separate arguments with respect to claims
6 and 7 beyond the arguments made for claim 1. See Appeal Br. 15. As
such, we select claim 1 as representative for disposition of this rejection. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2018).

The Examiner’s Rejection
In rejecting claim 1 as obvious over Dietl, Aggarwal, and Shigeoka,
the Examiner determined Dietl and Aggarwal render obvious a processing
chamber including a gas distribution assembly, susceptor assembly, a drive
shaft, and plurality of linear heating lamps. Final Act. 4–7. The Examiner
found Dietl and Aggarwal fail to disclose linear lamps with an electrode on
at least one of the lamps, the electrode bending downward away from the
bottom surface of the susceptor assembly. Id. at 7. The Examiner found
Shigeoka discloses a wafer heating assembly including linear lamps, where
each of the lamps has an electrode bending downward away from the bottom
surface of the wafer holder susceptor assembly. Id. The Examiner found
Shigeoka discloses that electrodes may be connected to a plurality of power
sources so that different voltages can be applied. Id. The Examiner
determined it would have been obvious to have provided each of the linear
lamps with an electrode on at least one end of the lamp and bending
downward away from the bottom surface of the susceptor assembly of Dietl
and Aggarwal to enable supply of different voltages and obtain improved
control over heating of the substrate in view of Shigeoka. Id.

Appeal 2020-001581
Application 14/785,009

6
Appellant’s Arguments
Appellant argues Shigeoka’s lamp design is to provide heating with
high power, whereas the location of the electrodes in claim 1 allows the
electrodes to be moved away from the hottest portion of the susceptor
assembly to minimize thermal damage and prolong the life of the lamp.
Appeal Br. 14, citing Shigeoka ¶¶ 85–87, Spec. ¶ 55. Appellant contends
Shigeoka, Dietl, and Aggarwal fail to recognize any solution to the problem
of minimizing thermal damage and prolonging life of the lamp. Id.
Appellant argues that modifying Dietl or Aggarwal with the lamps of
Shigeoka would result in thermal damage of the lamps of Dietl and
Aggarwal, and destroy the function thereof. Id. at 14–15.

Issue
Has Appellant demonstrated reversible error in the Examiner’s
position that it would have been obvious to have applied the electrode
configuration of Shigeoka to the processing chambers of the combined
teachings of Dietl and Aggarwal in order to arrive at electrode configuration
recited in claim 1?

Discussion
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. In particular,
Appellant does not sufficiently explain why Shigeoka’s disclosure that lamp
130A provides heating with high power is contrary to locating the electrodes
away from the hottest portion of the susceptor assembly to minimize thermal
damage and prolong the life of the lamp. Both Shigeoka and the
Specification disclose processing wafers in excess of 500 °C, and in the case
Appeal 2020-001581
Application 14/785,009

7
of Shigeoka at wafer temperatures of about 800 °C. Spec. ¶ 49; Shigeoka
¶ 194. Both the Specification and Shigeoka disclose high lamp
temperatures: 1800 °C in the Specification and 900 °C in Shigeoka. Spec.
¶ 49; Shigeoka ¶ 93. Thus, Appellant’s apparent argument that Shigeoka’s
disclosure of heating with high power is inconsistent with locating
electrodes away from the hottest portion of the susceptor assembly does not
follow from Shigeoka and the Specification.
In addition, whether Shigeoka, Aggarwal, and Shigeoka expressly
recognize a problem of minimizing thermal damage and prolonging the life
of the lamp is not determinative of whether one of ordinary skill in the art
would have modified Dietl or Aggarwal with Shigeoka, because the
reasoning or purpose for combining the prior art need not be the same as
Appellant’s. As stated by the Supreme Court in KSR, “[i]n determining
whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular
motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls. What matters is
the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is
invalid under § 103.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419
(2007).
In the instant case, the Examiner relied on the position that it would
have been obvious to have the electrodes in the combination of Dietl and
Agarwal bending downward away from the bottom surface of the susceptor
assembly in order to supply different voltages and obtain improved control
over heating of the substrate, and to accommodate linear lamps that are
disposed close to one another. Final Act. 7; Ans. 4. Appellant has not
specifically explained the deficiency in the Examiner’s rationale. As a
result, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s
Appeal 2020-001581
Application 14/785,009

8
alternate rationale (Ans. 4) regarding the arrangement of electrodes in lamps
that are disposed close to one another is conclusory. Reply Br. 3.
As to Appellant’s contention that the modifications proposed by the
Examiner would destroy the function of Dietl and Aggarwal by resulting in
thermal damage to the lamps, Appellant does not provide sufficient
explanation as to why Appellant believes this to be the case. Both Dietl and
Aggarwal disclose processing of wafers using heating with heat lamps.
Dietl, ¶¶ 1, 36, 37; Aggarwal, ¶¶ 2, 7. Thus, Appellant’s contentions that the
Examiner’s modification of Dietl and Agarwal would render those
references unsuitable for the intended purpose (Appeal Br. 14–15; Reply Br.
2–3) are not persuasive.
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that minimizing
thermal damage and prolonging the life of the lamp is a “surprising finding”
of providing an electrode that bends away from the lamp linear body. Reply
Br. 3, citing Spec. ¶ 55. The Specification does not discuss the locating the
electrodes in this manner as being surprising or unexpected. Spec. ¶ 55. In
addition, Appellant has not provided any additional sufficient evidence that
would support Appellant’s contention. Our reviewing court has emphasized
repeatedly that “[i]t is well settled that unexpected results must be
established by factual evidence. Mere argument or conclusory statements in
the specification does not suffice.” In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222
USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984), quoted with approval in In re Soni, 54 F.3d
746, 750 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s arguments.
As a result we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.

Appeal 2020-001581
Application 14/785,009

9
Rejections 2–9
For Rejections 2–9, including independent claims 11 and 20, the
Examiner relies on a similar combination of Dietl, Aggarwal, and Shigeoka,
as well as additional prior art. Final Act. 8–24. Appellant relies on similar
arguments as addressed above, arguing only that the additional prior art cited
does not remedy the deficiencies of Dietl, Aggarwal, and Shigeoka. Appeal
Br. 15–30.
Accordingly, we affirm Rejections 2–9 for similar reasons as
discussed above for Rejection 1.
Appeal 2020-001581
Application 14/785,009

10
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 6, 7 103 Dietl, Aggarwal,
Shigeoka
1, 6, 7
2 103 Dietl, Aggarwal,
Shigeoka,
McNeilly
2
3 103 Dietl, Aggarwal,
Shigeoka,
Murakawa
3
8, 16–18 103 Dietl, Aggarwal,
Shigeoka,
Robinson, Stevens
8, 16–18
10 103 Dietl, Aggarwal,
Shigeoka,
Mahawili
10
11–13 103 Dietl, Aggarwal,
Shigeoka,
Robinson, Stevens
11–13
14, 15 103 Dietl, Aggarwal,
Shigeoka,
Robinson, Stevens,
Suzuki,
14, 15
19 103 Dietl, Aggarwal,
Shigeoka,
Robinson, Stevens,
Suzuki
19
20 103 Dietl, Aggarwal,
Shigeoka,
Robinson, Stevens,
Suzuki
20
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 6–8,
10–20

Appeal 2020-001581
Application 14/785,009

11
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).
AFFIRMED