Ex Parte Bosch

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 6, 2010

11103446 (B.P.A.I. May. 6, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte WILLIAM FREDERICK BOSCH
____________

Appeal 2009-013208
Application 11/103,446
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: May 06, 2010
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHARLES F. WARREN, and
MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 31-52, 54, and 55. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6.
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2009-013208
Application 11/103,446

Appellant claims a ceramic part for a vacuum processing chamber for
processing semiconductor substrates, the ceramic part comprising a non-
oxide ceramic material having an outer surface and a silicon oxide layer on
the outer surface, the silicon oxide having incorporated therein particles of
the non-oxide ceramic material which are attached on the outer surface
(claim 31).
Representative claim 31 reads as follows:
31. A ceramic part for a vacuum processing chamber for processing
semiconductor substrates, the ceramic part comprising:

a non-oxide ceramic material having an as-machined or as-sintered
outer surface; and

a silicon oxide layer on the outer surface of the non-oxide ceramic
material and forming an outermost surface of the ceramic part, the silicon
oxide layer having incorporated therein particles of the non-oxide ceramic
material which are attached on the outer surface.

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner rejects claims 31, 33, 39-41,
43, 49, and 55 over Niori (US 5,800,618, pat. issued Sep. 01, 1998) in view
of Kourtides (US 5,296,288, pat. issued Mar. 22, 1994) and rejects claims
32, 34-38, 42, 44-48, 50-52 and 54 as being unpatentable over the Niori and
Kourtides references and further in view of Lu (US 5,904,778, pat. issued
May 18, 1999).
Each of the independent claims on appeal (i.e., claims 31, 40, and 50)
define a ceramic part (e.g., a showerhead electrode) comprising a non-oxide
ceramic material (e.g, silicon carbide) and a silicon oxide layer on the outer
surface of the non-oxide ceramic material wherein the silicon oxide layer has
incorporated therein particles of the non-oxide ceramic material which are
attached to the outer surface thereof. According to Appellant, forming a
2
Appeal 2009-013208
Application 11/103,446

silicon oxide layer on the outer surface of the non-oxide ceramic material
incorporates particles of the non-oxide ceramic material into the silicon
oxide layer in order to thereby avoid particle contamination that would occur
in the absence of the silicon oxide layer (Spec. 8). In each of the rejections
on appeal, the Examiner relies on Niori and Kourtides to evince
unpatentability of this common feature of the independent claims.
The Examiner finds that Niori discloses a ceramic part in the form of
ceramic substrate 18 which comprises a filmy substrate 16 overtop a planar
substrate 17 wherein 16 and 17 may be made of the same or different
materials including, inter alia, silicon carbide and alumina (Ans. 3-5; Niori,
col. 15, ll. 1-21). In light of this disclosure, the Examiner finds that Niori’s
ceramic substrate 18 includes an embodiment wherein filmy substrate 16
comprises an oxide layer in the form of alumina overtop planar substrate 17
comprising a non-oxide ceramic material in the form of silicon carbide (Ans.
13). The Examiner
believes that Niori’s oxide layer [i.e., the alumina filmy
substrate 16] exhibits the same particle adhering properties
such that attached particles on the outer surface of the non-
oxide ceramic material (silicon carbide) resulting from
machining or sintering of the part can be prevented from
contaminating the semiconductor substrates during plasma
processing

(id. at 11). Thus, the Examiner finds that the independent claims distinguish
from Niori in the sense that “Niori does not teach that his oxide layer . . . is a
silicon oxide layer, as claimed” (id. at 5).
Regarding this distinction, the Examiner finds that “Kourtides teaches
a protective coating of silicon oxide applied to ceramic materials (abstract;
column 6, lines 31-43)” (id.). The Examiner concludes that “[i]t would have
3
Appeal 2009-013208
Application 11/103,446

been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to add Kourtides’s silicon oxide protective coating to Niori’s ceramic
part (18; Figures 4; column 15; lines 1-47)” (id. at 6). According to the
Examiner, “[m]otivation to add Kourtides’s silicon oxide protective coating
to Niori’s ceramic part . . . is for improving thermal stability in high
temperature processing environments as taught by Kourtides (column 3,
lines 1-5)” (id.).
Appellant argues that the Examiner has identified no disclosure in
Niori of an oxide layer having incorporated therein particles of a non-oxide
ceramic material (App. Br. para. bridging 13-14).
We agree.
As explained earlier, the Examiner believes that Niori’s filmy
substrate 16 when formed of alumina would have incorporated therein
particles of the underlying non-oxide ceramic material of planar substrate 17
(Ans. 11). However, the Examiner has supplied no probative evidence in
support of this stated belief. On the record before us, the Examiner’s belief
is unsupported speculation.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner has given no convincing
reason for applying Kourtides high temperature (i.e., up to 1650°C) resistant
silicon oxide coating on Niori’s substrate since this substrate is subjected to
much lower temperatures (i.e., up to only about 100°C) (App. Br. para.
bridging 17-18). Appellant relies upon the Bosch Declaration of record in
support of this argument (id.; Decl. para. 7).
Appellant’s argument and supporting Declaration are persuasive.
As stated above, the Examiner contends that “[m]otivation to add
Kourtides’s silicon oxide protective coating to Niori’s ceramic part . . . is for
4
Appeal 2009-013208
Application 11/103,446

improving thermal stability in high temperature processing environments as
taught by Kourtides” (Ans. 6). Based on the record before us, however, the
Kourtides high temperature environment of up to 1650°C has no apparent
applicability to the relatively low 100°C environment of Niori. In this
regard, the Examiner does not dispute Appellant’s argument or Declaration
evidence that semiconductor processing reaches temperatures of up to only
about 100°C (Decl. para. 7). Moreover, the apparent inapplicability of
Kourtides’ high temperature silicon oxide coating to Niori’s semiconductor
processing environment is reinforced by the fact that Kourtides’ coating is
designed for ceramic materials used in a heat shield for space vehicles
(Kourtides Abstract).
These circumstances lead us to determine that the Examiner’s
obviousness conclusion in combining Niori and Kourtides is based upon
impermissible hindsight derived from Appellant’s own disclosure.
Therefore, we cannot sustain either of the § 103 rejections advanced by the
Examiner in this appeal.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED

ssl

BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
POST OFFICE BOX 1404
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404
5