Ex Parte Aderhold et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 30, 2013

10788979 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2013)

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.
10/788,979 02/27/2004 Wolfgang Aderhold 008304 6862
60300 7590 05/01/2013
LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES GUENZER
ATTN: APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.
2211 PARK BOULEVARD
P.O. BOX 60729
PALO ALTO, CA 94306
EXAMINER
PAIK, SANG YEOP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte WOLFGANG ADERHOLD,
SUNDAR RAMAMURTHY and AARON HUNTER
________________

Appeal 2012-009199
Application 10/788,979
Technology Center 3700
________________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY and
BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
The Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s 2
decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7, 8, 13-15 and 30-32. Claims 6, 9-12 and 16-3
29 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 4

1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as Applied Materials,
Inc. of Santa Clara, California. The present application was the subject of
Appeal 2009-003417, decided June 28, 2010.
Appeal 2012-009199
Application 10/788,979

2
We sustain: 1
the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) 2
(2011) as being anticipated by Paranjpe (US 5,601,366, issued 3
Feb. 11, 1997); 4
the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2011) 5
as being unpatentable over Paranjpe and either Moslehi (US 6
4,891,499, issued Jan. 2, 1990); Ballance (US 6,090,210, issued 7
Jul. 18, 2000); or Anderson (US 6,113,703, issued Sep. 5, 8
2000); and 9
the rejection of claims 3-5, 8, 13, 14 and 30 under 10
§ 103(a) (2011) as being unpatentable over Paranjpe and 11
Ballance. 12
We do not sustain: 13
the rejection of claims 3-5, 8, 13, 14 and 30 under 14
§ 103(a) (2011) as being unpatentable over Paranjpe and either 15
Moslehi or Anderson; and 16
the rejection of claims 15, 31 and 32 under § 103(a) 17
(2011) as being unpatentable over Paranjpe and any one of 18
Moslehi, Ballance and Anderson. 19
Claim 1 recites: 20
1. A method of thermally processing a 21
substrate in a reactor comprising a radiant heat 22
source, comprising the steps of: 23
disposing a substrate to be thermally 24
processed on a front side thereof facing 25
downwardly to form features therein with a back 26
side opposite said front side facing said radiant 27
heat source; and 28
Appeal 2012-009199
Application 10/788,979

3
pyrometrically monitoring including 1
receiving radiation emitted from said front side of 2
said substrate. 3
4
ISSUES 5
Only issues and findings of fact contested by the Appellant have been 6
considered. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075-76 (BPAI 2010) 7
(precedential). The Appellants argue claims 1 and 2 as a group for purposes 8
of the rejection under § 102(b). Independent claim 1 is representative. The 9
Appellants do not argue the patentability of claim 7 under § 103(a); 10
therefore, we address the patentability of claim 7 only to the extent that the 11
secondary references cited against the claim may fail to remedy a deficiency 12
in the teachings of Paranjpe as applied to parent claim 1. One issue is 13
dispositive of the appeal as to claims 1, 2 and 7: 14
First, does Paranjpe describe a method including the step 15
of pyrometrically monitoring a substrate, including receiving 16
radiation emitted from a downwardly-facing front side of the 17
substrate? (See App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 1-2). 18
The Appellants argue claims 3-5 as a separate group for purposes of 19
the rejection under § 103(a). Independent claim 3 is representative. The 20
Appellants do not argue the patentability of claim 30 under § 103(a); 21
therefore, we address the patentability of claim 30 only to the extent that the 22
secondary references cited against the claim may fail to remedy a deficiency 23
in the teachings of Paranjpe and either Moslehi, Ballance or Anderson as 24
applied to parent claim 3. One additional issue is dispositive of the appeal as 25
to this claim grouping. 26
Appeal 2012-009199
Application 10/788,979

4
Second, do the evidence and technical reasoning 1
underlying the rejection of representative claim 3 adequately 2
support the conclusion that the method of claim 3 would have 3
been obvious despite reciting the step of supporting a substrate 4
with a peripheral fixture including an annular shelf contacting 5
the substrate and extending under the substrate around its center 6
but no further inward than an edge exclusion zone of the 7
substrate? (See App. Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 2). 8
The Appellants argue claims 8, 13 and 15 separately. Nevertheless, 9
the Appellants’ arguments regarding claims 8 and 13 may be dealt with 10
together. The Appellants argue claims 31 and 32 as a separate group. 11
Independent claim 32 is representative of the latter grouping. Three 12
additional issues are dispositive of the appeal as to these claims: 13
Third, do the evidence and technical reasoning 14
underlying the rejection of claim 8 adequately support the 15
conclusion that the method of claim 8 would have been obvious 16
despite reciting the step of disposing a substrate with its front 17
side facing downwardly and towards a reflector? (See App. Br. 18
13-14; Reply Br. 2). 19
Fourth, do the evidence and technical reasoning 20
underlying the rejection of representative claim 15 adequately 21
support the conclusion that the thermal processing apparatus of 22
claim 15 would have been obvious despite reciting a detachable 23
holding member capable of holding the wafer from a top side of 24
the wafer? (See App. Br. 14-15; Reply Br. 2-3). 25
Appeal 2012-009199
Application 10/788,979

5
Fifth, do the evidence and technical reasoning underlying 1
the rejection of claims 31 and 32 adequately support the 2
conclusion that the method of claim 31 or the thermal 3
processing apparatus of claim 32 would have been obvious 4
despite reciting means including an annular ring having a 5
sloping annular shelf? (See App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 2). 6
7
FINDINGS OF FACT 8
The record supports the following findings of fact (“FF”) by a 9
preponderance of the evidence. 10
11
Paranjpe 12
1. Paranjpe describes a process for rapid thermal chemical vapor 13
deposition of tungsten on a substrate in a single wafer advanced vacuum 14
processor (“AVP”). (Paranjpe, col. 4, ll. 19-23). The AVP includes a heat 15
source. (Paranjpe, col. 5, ll. 19-22). This process is one for thermally 16
processing a substrate in a reactor comprising a radiant heat source. 17
2. Paranjpe describes the wafer processing and heating as being 18
“performed face-down and from the backside, respectively.” (Paranjpe, col. 19
5, ll. 24-25; see also id., fig. 2). In other words, Paranjpe describes 20
disposing a substrate to be thermally processed on a front side thereof facing 21
downwardly to form features therein with a back side opposite said front 22
side facing said radiant heat source. 23
3. Paranjpe describes pyrometrically monitoring the substrate. 24
(Paranjpe, col. 5, ll. 29-32). 25
Appeal 2012-009199
Application 10/788,979

6
4. Paranjpe discloses that, “[w]hile the pyrometer can be used to 1
image the radiation from either surface of the wafer, higher accuracy can be 2
obtained for the unpatterned wafer backside.” (Paranjpe, col. 5, ll. 52-55). 3
This passage describes both pyrometric monitoring in which the pyrometer 4
receives radiation emitted from said front side of said substrate; and 5
pyrometric monitoring in which the pyrometer receives radiation emitted 6
from said back side of said substrate. 7
8
Ballance 9
5. Ballance describes a rapid thermal processing (“RTP”) chamber 10
10 including an internal processing cavity 14. (Ballance, col. 3, ll. 39-42). 11
The RTP chamber 10 also includes a lamp head 40 which is used to irradiate 12
a substrate 16 with high intensity radiation. (Ballance, col. 3, ll. 47-50). 13
Figure 1 of Ballance depicts the lamp head 40 as facing downwardly onto 14
the substrate 16. 15
6. Ballance’s RTP chamber 10 also includes an annularly shaped 16
support ring 18 for holding the substrate 16 in the internal processing cavity 17
14. The support ring 18 includes an inwardly extending lip 24 which holds 18
the substrate 16 at the outer perimeter of the substrate. Ballance teaches that 19
holding the substrate 16 at the outer perimeter of the substrate exposes most 20
of the backside. (Ballance, col. 4, ll. 11-15). 21
7. Ballance does not appear to either describe or depict the 22
inwardly extending lip 24 as a sloping annular shelf. 23
8. Ballance’s RTP chamber 10 also includes a reflector plate 28. 24
(Ballance, col. 4, ll. 19-20). Figure 1 of Ballance depicts the reflector plate 25
as facing upwardly from beneath the support ring 18 and the substrate 16. 26
Appeal 2012-009199
Application 10/788,979

7
9. Ballance’s RTP chamber 10 also includes pyrometers 34 which 1
convert the intensity of sampled radiation reflected from the underside of the 2
substrate 16 as held in the support ring 18 to a substrate temperature reading. 3
(Ballance, col. 4, ll. 28-31). 4
10. Ballance teaches that the support ring 18 holds the substrate 16 5
above the reflector plate 28 to form a reflecting cavity 35 between the 6
underside of the substrate as held on the support ring and the top surface of 7
the reflector plate. (Ballance, col. 4, ll. 22-25). “Reflecting cavity 35 serves 8
to enhance the effective emissivity of the substrate [16] and thereby produce 9
more accurate temperature measurements which are less sensitive to 10
variations in emissivity from one wafer to the next.” (Ballance, col. 4, ll. 31-11
35). 12
11. Ballance does not appear to describe a detachable holding 13
member capable of holding the substrate 16 from a top side of the substrate. 14
15
Moslehi 16
12. Moslehi describes an apparatus 10 including a vacuum chamber 17
12, which may be a RTP reactor or an AVP; and a heating lamp module 14 18
for heating a wafer 26 within the vacuum chamber 12. (Moslehi, col. 5, ll. 19
49-56). Figure 1 of Moslehi depicts the heating lamp module 14 as facing 20
downwardly onto the wafer 26. 21
13. Moslehi describes resting the wafer 26 facedown on a plurality 22
of quartz pins 50 attached to a quartz ring 46. Moslehi describes the quartz 23
ring 46 as spaced apart a uniform distance around the wafer 26. (Moslehi, 24
col. 6, ll. 57-61). Figure 1 of Moslehi depicts the heating lamp module 14 as 25
irradiating the back side of the wafer 26. 26
Appeal 2012-009199
Application 10/788,979

8
14. Moslehi additionally teaches that it is “preferable to place the 1
quartz ring 46 in contact with three or four quartz pins 50 to hold the wafer 2
in order to prevent conductive heat loss from wafer 26 to quartz ring 46” 3
(Moslehi, col. 8, ll. 21-25). 4
15. Moslehi does not appear to describe or depict a reflector on a 5
downward side of the wafer 26. 6
7
Anderson 8
16. Anderson describes a semiconductor processing system 10 for 9
performing chemical vapor deposition processing on a wafer 12. The 10
processing systems 10 includes a processing chamber 14; a wafer holder 16; 11
infrared heat lamps 18, 20 above and below the wafer holder 16; and 12
pyrometers 22, 24. (Anderson, col. 3, ll. 7-19). 13
17. The wafer holder 16 includes a number of arms 55 terminating 14
in discrete wafer seats 58. The wafer seats 58 support the wafer 12. 15
(Anderson, col. 3, ll. 58-62). 16
18. Anderson does not appear to describe or depict a reflector on a 17
downward side of the wafer 12. 18
19
ANALYSIS 20
First Issue 21
The Appellants argue that “Paranjpe teaches the unclaimed 22
combination of backside pyrometric monitoring and topside irradiation of an 23
inverted wafer. [Paranjpe] further teaches against frontside pyrometric 24
monitoring of a wafer of whatever orientation.” (App. Br. 9). While 25
Paranjpe describes the unclaimed combination of backside pyrometric 26
Appeal 2012-009199
Application 10/788,979

9
monitoring and topside irradiation of an inverted wafer, it also describes the 1
claimed combination of frontside pyrometric monitoring and topside 2
irradiation of an inverted wafer. (FF 4). 3
The Appellants argue that the passage of Paranjpe at column 5, lines 4
52-55 teaches away from the method of claim 1. A teaching away from 5
subject matter described by a prior art reference does not imply that the prior 6
art reference fails to anticipate the subject matter. E.g., Seachange Int’l, Inc. 7
v. C-COR Inc., 413 F.3d 1361, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Even were this not 8
the case, the cited passage does not teach away from the subject matter of 9
claim 1. The subject matter of a claim “does not become patentable simply 10
because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other 11
[alternative] for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 12
1994). We sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under § 102(b) as being 13
anticipated by Paranjpe. We also sustain the rejection of claim 7 under 35 14
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Paranjpe and either Moslehi, 15
Ballance or Anderson. 16
17
Second Issue 18
The Examiner finds that Paranjpe fails to describe supporting a 19
substrate with a peripheral fixture including an annular shelf contacting the 20
substrate and extending under the substrate around its center. (See Ans. 5). 21
Neither Moslehi nor Anderson teaches this step. (FF 13, 14 and 17). 22
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 3-5, 30 and 31 under 23
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Paranjpe and either Moslehi or 24
Anderson. 25
Appeal 2012-009199
Application 10/788,979

10
Ballance does teach supporting a substrate with a peripheral fixture 1
including an annular shelf contacting the substrate and extending under the 2
substrate around its center. (FF 6). Furthermore, the Examiner provides 3
reasoning with some rational underpinning to explain why one of ordinary 4
skill in the art might have modified the inwardly extending lip 24 of 5
Ballance’s support ring 18 so as to extend no further inward than an edge 6
exclusion zone of the substrate. The Examiner reasons that it would have 7
been mere “obvious experimentation to limit the edge extension [to] 8
adequately and sufficiently support the substrate without much overlapping 9
or blocking the thermal processing of the working surface of the substrate.” 10
(Ans. 7). Ballance teaches holding the substrate 16 at the outer perimeter of 11
the substrate to expose most of the backside. (FF 6). It would have been 12
obvious as a matter of common sense to restrict the inwardly extending lip 13
24 of Ballance’s support ring 18 so as to extend no further inward than an 14
edge exclusion zone of the substrate so as to expose the developing portion 15
of the front side of the substrate for treatment. See Perfect Web Techs., Inc. 16
v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (the examiner 17
when analyzing the evidence may employ common sense not inconsistent 18
with the ordinary level of knowledge and skill in the art at the time of the 19
invention). 20
The Appellants provide no reason why the proposed modification of 21
Ballance would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art or 22
why the results of the proposed modification might not have been 23
predictable. We sustain the rejection of claims 3-5 and 30 under § 103(a) as 24
being unpatentable over Paranjpe and Ballance. 25
Appeal 2012-009199
Application 10/788,979

11
Third Issue 1
Paranjpe does not appear to describe a reflector on a downward side 2
of the substrate. Neither Moslehi nor Anderson teaches such a reflector. 3
(FF 15 and 18). Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 8, 13-4
15 and 32 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Paranjpe and either 5
Moslehi or Anderson. 6
Paranjpe describes thermally processing a substrate with a front side 7
of the substrate facing downwardly and with a back side of the substrate 8
facing a downwardly facing radiant heat source. (FF 2). Ballance teaches a 9
reflector on a downward side of the substrate. (FF 8). The Examiner 10
correctly concludes that it would have been obvious “to adapt Paranjpe with 11
a reflector in the reactor (12) to allow more even heat distribution in the 12
chamber for thermally processing and heating the substrate disposed 13
therein.” (Ans. 6). 14
Furthermore, Paranjpe teaches pyrometrically monitoring the front 15
side of the substrate. (FF 4). Ballance teaches pyrometrically monitoring 16
the temperature on the same underside of the substrate where the reflector is 17
located. Ballance explains that the reflecting cavity 35 between the 18
underside of the substrate and the top surface of the reflector plate “serves to 19
enhance the effective emissivity of the substrate [16] and thereby produce 20
more accurate temperature measurements which are less sensitive to 21
variations in emissivity from one wafer to the next.” (FF 10 (quoting 22
Ballance, col. 4, ll. 31-35)). The teachings of Ballance would have 23
suggested positioning the reflector below the front side of the substrate, and 24
pyrometrically monitoring the temperature within the cavity between the 25
Appeal 2012-009199
Application 10/788,979

12
front side of the substrate and the reflector, in order to produce more 1
accurate temperature measurements. 2
The Appellants provide no reason why the proposed modification of 3
Ballance would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art or 4
why the results of the proposed modification might not have been 5
predictable. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 8, 13 and 14 under 6
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Paranjpe and Ballance.2 7
8
Fourth and Fifth Issues 9
Paranjpe does not appear to describe either a detachable holding 10
member capable of holding the wafer from a top side of the wafer or means 11
including an annular ring having a sloping annular shelf. Ballance does not 12
appear to teach either limitation, either. (FF 7 and 11). Therefore, we do not 13
sustain the rejection of claims 15, 31 and 32 under § 103(a) as being 14
unpatentable over Paranjpe and either Moslehi or Anderson. 15
16
DECISION 17
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7, 8, 13, 18
14 and 30. 19

2 Claim 13 recites “means including an annular ring for holding a wafer
on an annular surface of the annular ring.” Since an annular ring with an
annular surface is sufficient structure to carry out the recited functions, it is
unnecessary to interpret this claim term under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth
paragraph. See Rodime PLC v. Seagate Tech., Inc., 174 F.3d 1294, 1302
(Fed. Cir. 1999). The Appellants’ arguments regarding this claim term are
addressed in connection with the Second Issue. (See App. Br. 10-13; Reply
Br. 2-3).
Appeal 2012-009199
Application 10/788,979

13
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 15, 31 and 1
32. 2
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with 3
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010). 4
5
AFFIRMED-IN-PART 6
7
8
hh 9