Ex Parte Aderhold et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 1, 2016

12193439 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/193,439 08/18/2008 Wolfgang Aderhold
67251 7590 02/03/2016
SERVILLA WHITNEY LLC/AMT
33 WOOD A VE SOUTH
SUITE 830
!SELIN, NJ 08830
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
008304/C/02/USA/FEP/RTP/P 4817
EXAMINER
PAIK, SANG YEOP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/03/2016 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
jescobar@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 WOLFGANG ADERHOLD,
SUNDAR RAMAMURTHY, and
AARON HUNTER
Appeal2013-010688
Application 12/193,439
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JILL D. HILL, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1---6 and 8-23. App. Br. 8. Claim 7 has
been cancelled. See Amendment filed July 8, 2011. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
AppealNo.2013-010688
Application No. 12/193,439
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter "relate[ s] generally to heat treatment of
semiconductor wafers and other substrates." Spec. ,-r 2. Independent claim 1
is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below:
1. A rapid thermal processing apparatus for heating a
substrate, the substrate having a center, a periphery, a back side
and a front side with a plurality of integrated circuit die
arranged on the front side, the apparatus comprising:
a substrate support to hold the substrate, wherein during
processing of the substrate the support does not substantially
shield the back side;
a rotatable support to rotate the substrate support;
a radiant heat apparatus consisting essentially of a
plurality of lamps arranged in dynamically controlled zones
extending from a central axis in an outward direction, the
radiant heat lamps positioned below the substrate support and to
direct energy to the substrate at the center of the substrate and
to the periphery when the substrate is processed; and
a reflector positioned above the substrate support to
reflect heat toward the substrate support.
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
McNeilly US 4,047,496 Sept. 13, 1977
Ballance US 6,090,210 July 18, 2000
Kiyama US 6,184,498 Bl Feb. 6, 2001
Appellants' Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) as evidenced by Figure 1 of
Appellants' Specification.
THE REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 1---6 and 8-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ballance or AAPA in view ofMcNeilly or Kiyama.
2
AppealNo.2013-010688
Application No. 12/193,439
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue claims 1---6 and 8-23 together as a group. App. Br.
8-1 7. Appellants also present separate arguments for claims 1---6 and 8-14
together as a group (App. Br. 17), claims 13 and 20 together as a group
(App. Br. 18), claims 14 and 17 together as a group (App. Br. 18), and
claims 15-20 together as a group (App. Br. 18). We separately address the
arguments for each grouping.
Claims 1---6 and 8-23
The Examiner relies on Ballance, as well as AAP A, for disclosing "a
substrate support that does not substantially shield the back side of the
substrate." Final Act. 2. The Examiner also relies on Ballance and AAPA
for disclosing "a radiant heat apparatus consisting of a plurality of lamps
which extends from a central axis in an outward direction to the periphery of
the substrate." Final Act. 2. However, the Examiner acknowledges that
"neither [Ballance] nor the admitted prior art shows the radiant heat
apparatus positioned below the substrate support." Final Act. 2 (emphasis
added).
On this point, the Examiner relies on McNeilly for showing that it is
known to provide a lower radiant heating apparatus (which also includes a
plurality of lamps that extend from a central axis outwardly) and further that
"a reflector (11) is shown positioned above a substrate support." Final Act.
2; see also Ans. 6. The Examiner finds that Kiyama likewise shows that it is
known in the art for a heating apparatus to have "a plurality of heaters
positioned below the substrate support," and further, that Kiyama "shows a
controller that receives the outputs from the pyrometers to control the
heating apparatus." Final Act. 3. In conclusion, the Examiner states that it
3
AppealNo.2013-010688
Application No. 12/193,439
would have been obvious "to adapt Ballance or the admitted prior art with
the heating apparatus positioned below the substrate support as an
alternative known arrangement in the art." Final Act. 3. The Examiner also
states that, as per KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007),
"applying a known technique to improve similar devices" is a rationale "that
supports a conclusion of obviousness." 1'2 Ans. 5; see also KSR 550 U.S. at
417.
Appellants contend that "[t]he Examiner provides no reasoning
whatsoever as to why the skilled artisan would substitute the arrangement in
Ballance for those in McNeilly or Kiyama." App. Br. 8; see also id. at 9. In
view of the Examiner's findings and articulated reasoning above, we do not
find this argument persuasive.
Appellants also discuss the teachings of Ballance, AAP A, and
McNeilly (App. Br. 10-11) contending that "McNeilly fails to make up for
the deficiencies of Ballance and the admitted prior art." App. Br. 11.
Appellants address such features as "the radiant heat apparatus" that
directs heat upwardly "to the substrate at the center and to the periphery
of the substrate when the substrate is processed" contending that
"McNeilly fails to show such a configuration." App. Br. 11-12; see also
Reply Br. 3.
1 The Examiner finds that "McNeilly shows it is known to provide heating
elements under the substrate support for heating wafers" and that "it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the heating
apparatus not only on the top side of the substrate support but also under the
substrate support as a known arrangement that also provides heating to the
wafer substrate supported on the support substrate." Ans. 6.
2 The Examiner further states that "there is also only a finite number of ways
to arrange the heating elements." Ans. 6-7.
4
AppealNo.2013-010688
Application No. 12/193,439
Appellants' contentions are not persuasive because the Examiner
acknowledges that "neither Balance nor the admitted prior art shows the
radiant heat apparatus positioned below the substrate support," and the
Examiner relies on McNeilly to resolve this deficiency. Final Act. 2. It is
noted that Figures 1 and 2 of McNeilly are specifically discussed as
illustrating a plurality of lamps that "emit[] radiant heat energy therefrom
upwardly as a generally uniform field." McNeilly 5:58---61 (emphasis
added). Additionally, Appellants do not explain how McNeilly's upward
delivery of a uniform field of heat fails to teach directing the heat upwardly
"to the substrate at the center and to the periphery of the substrate when
the substrate is processed" as argued. 3
Appellants also contend that "McNeilly does not teach where the
lamps direct energy." App. Br. 12. However, Appellants do not
persuasively explain how a radiant heat source providing uniform heat from
below the substrate fails to provide heat "at the center of the substrate and to
the periphery" as recited in independent claim 1 (independent claims 15 and
21 contain similar language). Appellants also contend that McNeilly's
"lamps appear to be offset from the wafers" (App. Br. 12) but the claims in
question only recite a heat apparatus having a plurality of lamps arranged so
as to "extend[] from a central axis in an outward direction." App. Br. 20-23
(Claims App.). Appellants do not explain how McNeilly's heat apparatus
fails to disclose this limitation. We note, however, that the Examiner
3 As indicated in McNeilly, the disclosed uniform heat source is "opposed to
focused energy which characteristically is emitted from a point energy
source." McNeilly 5:61---62.
5
AppealNo.2013-010688
Application No. 12/193,439
primarily relies on the teachings of Ballance and AAPA for this "extending
from a central axis" limitation. See Final Act. 2.
Appellants additionally focus on "Figure 4 of McN eilly" which is
described as "another modified embodiment of the apparatus." App. Br. 12;
McNeilly 3:46-47; see also Reply Br. 3. Appellants address this additional
embodiment because it includes a "hollow shaft 82" (others do not)
contending that this "hollow shaft 82 would prevent light energy from
being directed at the center of and to the periphery of the substrate."
App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 3. Appellants' focus on this embodiment of
McNeilly, to the exclusion of the other embodiments disclosed in McNeilly,
is not persuasive of Examiner error.
Appellants also argue that McNeilly fails to "disclosure or suggest"
the limitation of independent claims 1, 15 and 21 directed to a substrate
support that "does not substantially shield the back side of the substrate."
Reply Br. 3. As noted supra, the Examiner relies on Ballance and AAP A for
disclosing this limitation, not McNeilly, and hence Appellants' contention is
not persuasive of Examiner error.4 See Final Act. 2. In short, we are not
persuaded that a skilled artisan would not combine Balance (or AAP A) with
McNeilly as the Examiner has done and for the reasons stated. See App. Br.
13; Final Act. 2-3.
When discussing Kiyama, Appellants address Kiyama's support
contending that such support "shields the backside of the wafer." App. Br.
14; Reply Br. 3. As indicated supra, the Examiner did not rely on Kiyama
4 Of interest, however, is McNeilly's discussion of its support which states
that "such a stand is transparent to the radiant energy emitted by the heat
source." McNeilly 7:33-34.
6
AppealNo.2013-010688
Application No. 12/193,439
for disclosing this "backless" support limitation. Final Act. 3. Instead, the
Examiner relied on Kiyama (like McNeilly) for disclosing a heating
apparatus located below the substrate. See Final Act. 3. Appellants do not
persuade us of Examiner error on this point.
Appellants also contend that "the heat source in Kiyama (a resistive
heater) is fundamentally different than a radiant heating apparatus" as
recited. App. Br. 14. Even assuming arguendo that this is the case, Kiyama
was not relied on by the Examiner for disclosing a radiant heater, but instead
for its location. 5 Final Act. 3.
Appellants further contend that the Examiner relied upon improper
hindsight analysis because "[n]either McNeilly nor Kiyama apply to rapid
thermal processing chambers." App. Br. 16. However, the Examiner does
not express a reliance on either McNeilly or Kiyama for such disclosure.
See Final Act. 2-3. On the other hand, Ballance and AAP A both indicate
that their respective devices relate to rapid thermal processing chambers.
Ballance 1 :5---6; Spec. i-f 4 (discussing AAPA).
Appellants also contend that the Examiner used Appellants'
disclosure as a roadmap "when none of the references even remotely suggest
a radiant heat apparatus directing radiant energy upwardly toward the
substrate" in the manner claimed. App. Br. 17. We disagree with
Appellants' contention for the reasons previously discussed regarding the
teachings of Ballance, AAPA, McNeilly, and Kiyama.
In summary, Appellants' contentions are not persuasive of Examiner
error.
5 Nevertheless, the Examiner finds that Kiyama's silicon carbide (SiC)
heater is a radiant heater, which Appellants dispute. Ans. 6; App. Br. 14--16.
7
AppealNo.2013-010688
Application No. 12/193,439
Claims 1---6 and 8-14
Appellants contend that "[t]he Final Office Action fails to recognize
that claims 1---6 and 8-[ 14] recite a 'radiant heating apparatus consisting
essentially of lamps,' which would exclude auxiliary heating elements."
App. Br. 17. Appellants thereafter discuss McNeilly and Kiyama whereas
the Examiner relied on the teachings of Ballance and AAP A for disclosing
the use of "a plurality of lamps." App. Br. 17; Final Act. 2. Appellants do
not contend that either Ballance or AAP A fails to disclose this limitation,
and hence Appellants are not persuasive of Examiner error on this point.
Claims 13 and 20
Dependent claims 13 and 20 each recite a controller that receives
outputs and controls voltages to control the radiant heating. The Examiner
states that "Kiyama further shows a controller that receives the outputs from
the pyrometers to control the heating apparatus." Final Act. 3; see also
Kiyama Figure 9. Kiyama also teaches that "the temperature of the
semiconductor wafer to be processed is controlled within the range of
tolerable thermal stress," and that there are "means for measuring the
temperature distribution of the semiconductor wafer." Kiyama 3:11-20; see
also Abstract. Kiyama further discusses "controlling and changing the
power of the inner, middle and outer heaters" so that "various temperature
distributions can be realized." Kiyama 4:55-57; see also 8:50-58.
Appellants contend that "[t]here is no discussion or suggestion in
Kiyama of a controller tha[ t] controls voltages supplied to different lamp
zones to thereby dynamically control radiant heating intensity and pattern
during processing." App. Br. 18. In view of Kiyama's disclosure of
controlling power (i.e. voltage) to inner, middle and outer heaters (i.e.,
8
AppealNo.2013-010688
Application No. 12/193,439
heater zones) for the reasons stated, we are not persuaded by Appellants of
Examiner error.
Claims 14 and 1 7
Each dependent claim 14 and 17 includes the additional limitation of
lamps arranged in "ring-like zones." The Examiner does not specifically
address either of these claims in the Final Action or the Examiner's Answer,
nor does the Examiner indicate where such teaching can be found in the
cited art. We note, however, that Kiyama specifically teaches "using a
plurality of concentrical zone heaters" (Kiyama 4:27), and further that
Paragraph 7 of Appellants' Specification (i.e., AAP A) discusses "15 zones
arranged generally ring-like about the central axis 34." Nevertheless,
because the Examiner is silent with respect to these claims, and does not
indicate where the cited art teaches same, we reverse their rejection in view
of the Examiner's failure to state a reason for their rejection.
Claims 15-20
Independent claim 15 recites a gas port "coupled to a highly thermally
conductive gas." The Examiner finds that "Ballance shows a gas port (90)
which introduces a cooling gas" (Ans. 7), and further that "McNeilly also
shows a gas port" that couples to "a reactant gas." Final Act. 4; see also
Ans. 7. Although we agree that Ballance and McNeilly each disclose gas
ports, these ports are employed to emit "e.g. process and/or reactive gases"
and "a gaseous reactant mixture" respectively. See e.g., Ballance 4:8-10;
McNeilly 2:56-57. The Examiner does not indicate how these disclosed
process or reactant gases correlate to the claimed "thermally conductive
gas." In short, the Examiner does not indicate how the gas ports disclosed in
Ballance and McNeilly teach or suggest to one skilled in the art their use to
9
AppealNo.2013-010688
Application No. 12/193,439
dispense a "thermally conductive gas" as claimed. We reverse the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 15, and claims 16-20 which
depend therefrom.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1---6, 8-13, and 21-23 is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 14--20 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10