Ex Parte BoschDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 6, 201011103446 (B.P.A.I. May. 6, 2010) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation