Ex Parte Bour et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 11, 2015

11552474 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2015)

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.
11/552,474 10/24/2006 David Bour 011203
USA/NBD/NEON/ESONG
2128
45401 7590 09/14/2015
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
CHEN, KEATH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2015 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 DAVID BOUR1
and Lori D. Washington
________________

Appeal 2013-007605
Application 11/552,474
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, MARK NAGUMO, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
David Bour and Lori D. Washington (“Bour”) timely appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection2 of claims 25–35, which
are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We affirm.

1 The real party in interest is listed as Applied Materials, Inc. (Appeal
Brief, filed 4 February 2013 (“Br.”), 3.)
2 Office action mailed 3 April 2012 (“Final Rejection”; cited as “FR”).
Appeal 2013-007605
Application 11/552,474

2
OPINION
A. Introduction3
The subject matter on appeal relates to an apparatus for metal-organic
chemical vapor deposition (“MOCVD”) of “III-V nitride films” from
volatile group III precursors such as trimethylgallium (“TMGa”) or
trimethylaluminum (“TMAl”) and a nitrogen precursor such as ammonium.
(Spec. 1 [0003].) The various steps of the process are said to occur at varied
temperatures, and it is said to be desirable to provide a susceptor (i.e.,
a wafer support) capable of temperature changes greater than 10°C/s,
significantly more rapid than conventional temperature ramping, which is
said to be less than about 5°C/s. (Id. at 10 [0039].) In addition to the faster
processing and increased throughput (id. at 3–4, [0018]–[0019]), the faster
temperature changes are said to result in improvements in the levels of
impurities at growth stop interfaces (id. at 2–3 [0011]) and in the structural
quality of the deposited structures (id. at 4 [0021]).
Sole independent claim 25 is representative of the dispositive issues
and reads:
A semiconductor processing unit comprising:
a chamber [215] having walls;
a susceptor [208] located within said chamber,
said susceptor formed from a material having a low
thermal mass;
a substrate receiving region [~209] located on said
susceptor;

3 Application 11/552,474, Substrate support structure with rapid
temperature change, filed 24 October 2006. We refer to the
“ʼ474 Specification,” which we cite as “Spec.”
Appeal 2013-007605
Application 11/552,474

3
a gas distribution structure [221] located above and over
said substrate receiving region for providing source gases
into said chamber;
a gas reaction area [216] located above and over, and
separate from, said substrate receiving region,
between said gas distribution structure and said substrate
receiving region,
said gas reaction area for forming deposition products for
said substrate receiving region,
wherein said susceptor is for changing a temperature of
said gas reaction area at a rate greater than 10°C/sec;
a heat exchanger for limiting formation of said deposition
products on the walls of said chamber; and
a plurality of lamp heating elements for uniformly heating
said susceptor.
(Claims App., Br. 15; some indentation, paragraphing, emphasis, and
bracketed labels to elements shown in Fig. 2, reproduced below, added.)

{Fig. 2 is said to shows an exemplary CVD system}
Appeal 2013-007605
Application 11/552,474

4
As shown in Fig. 2, enclosure assembly 2374 contains evacuable
deposition chamber 215, which holds susceptor 208 having a substrate
receiving region for substrate 209 and that may have controllably moveable
heaters 226. (Spec. 5 [0024].) In other embodiments, lamp heaters may be
placed in various locations to heat the substrate support structure rapidly.
(Id. at 6 [0026].) The ʼ474 Specification teaches that susceptor 208 is
formed from low thermal mass materials such as nickel-iron alloy, quartz,
silicon, silicon carbide, or carbon composite. (Id. at 9 [0034].) According to
the Specification, “thermal mass is a measure of the thermal energy needed
to raise a unit mass by one Kelvin.” (Id. at [0035].)
Reactive gases and carrier gases (id. at 6 [0028]), as well as purge
gases, are introduced via vapor delivery system 220 through gas distribution
structure 221 to gas reaction area 216 above and over substrate 209
(id. at 5 [0025]). When a liquid source is used for the reactive gases, the gas
delivery system is said to include “a liquid injection system or other
appropriate mechanism (e.g., a bubbler) to vaporize the liquid.”
(Id. at 7 [0028].)
The walls of the deposition chamber 215 can be heated or cooled by
circulating a heat-exchange liquid through channels (not shown).
(Id. at 7 [0030].) Heating the walls is said to reduce or eliminate
condensation of undesirable reaction products on the walls of chamber 215.
(Id.) Moreover, in the words of the ʼ474 Specification, “a cool liquid may
be used to remove heat from the system during other [non-thermal

4 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, labels to elements in figures are
presented in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original
document.
Appeal 2013-007605
Application 11/552,474

5
deposition] processes, or to limit formation of deposition products on the
walls of the chamber.” (Id.)
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:5, 6
A. Claims 25–30, and 35 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of
Moore,7 Nulman,8 Ballance,9 and Johnsgard.10
A1. Claims 31–34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Moore, Nulman, Ballance,
Johnsgard, and Sverdlov.11

5 Examiner’s Answer mailed 22 February 2013 (“Ans.”).
6 The Examiner has withdrawn a rejection of claims 25–35 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(1), for lack of written description of the gas reaction area.
(Ans. 6, ll. 6–12.)
7 Gary M. Moore, Multi-layer susceptor for rapid thermal process reactors,
U.S. Patent No. 5,820,686 (1998).
8 Jaim Nulman and Dan Maydan, Wafer heating and monitor module and
method of operation, U.S. Patent No. 5,098,198 (1992). We include
Nulman, which the Examiner (FR 3, ll. 7–9) and Bour (Br. 9, 10, 12) cite, in
the statement of rejection for completeness.
9 David S. Ballance et al., Gas introduction showerhead for an RTP
chamber with upper and lower transparent plates and gas flow
therebetween, U.S. Patent No. 5,781,693 (1998).
10 Kristian E. Johnsgard and James McDiarmid, Thermal processing system
with supplemental resistive heater and shielded optical pyrometry, U.S.
Patent No. 5,830,277 (1998).
11 Boris N. Sverdlov and Jo Stephen Major, Jr., Method of doping GaN
layers P-type for device fabrication, U.S. Patent No. 5,888,886 (1999).
Appeal 2013-007605
Application 11/552,474

6
B. Discussion
Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record.
Bour argues the rejection of claims 25–30 and 35 as a group.
(Br. 9-11.) Thus, these claims stand or fall with claim 25.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2012).
Bour urges that the inventors “teach and claim a gas reaction area
separate from a substrate receiving region. A gas reaction area is an area
where source gases are reacted together to form a deposition product which
is only then grown on a wafer in a substrate receiving region above the
susceptor.” (Br. 10, ll. 12–15.) In contrast, Moore and Nulman, in Bour’s
view, teach a Rapid Thermal Process (“RTP”) apparatus in which an anneal
gas, such as N2 or Ar, is flowed into the chamber for direct contact with a
heated wafer. Neither reference, according to Bour, teaches or suggests the
susceptor provided “for changing a temperature of the gas reaction area at a
rate greater than 10°C/sec” that is required by the appealed claims.
(Id. at ll. 20-24.) Bour acknowledges that Ballance describes a showerhead
in an RTP chamber that makes possible CVD in an RTP chamber. (Id. at 11,
ll. 1–3.) However, in Bour’s view, “Ballance at least does not disclose a
distinct gas reaction area above a substrate receiving region, and, thus, fails
to cure the above noted deficiencies of Moore.” (Id. at 11, ll. 3–5.)
These arguments are not persuasive of harmful error in the appealed
rejection. The claims are drawn to an apparatus, not to a process, and the
critical limitations are in functional form. That is, rather than reciting
structure, they recite functions that various parts of the apparatus must
Appeal 2013-007605
Application 11/552,474

7
perform, such as the susceptor that must change the temperature of the gas
reaction area at a rate greater than 10°C/s. As the predecessor to our
reviewing court instructed, such functional characterizations are not
improper in claims, but “‘[f]unctional’ terminology may render a claim quite
broad. By its own literal terms a claim employing such language covers any
and all embodiments which perform the recited function.” In re Swinehart,
439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971).
Fig. 1, of Ballance, below, illustrates an RTP chamber.

{Ballance, Fig. 1, shows an RTP chamber 10}
Ballance, Fig. 1, shows an RTP chamber 10 with processing cavity 14
between bottom plate 52 and substrate 16. Gas supplied to tubes 48 flows
out of bottom plate 52 through holes 60 (see arrows). Comparison of Fig. 2
of the ʼ474 Specification, reproduced supra, with Ballance Fig. 1, shows the
strong structural correspondence of processing cavity 14, which is above and
Appeal 2013-007605
Application 11/552,474

8
over the substrate 16, and beneath the gas distribution structure, with the
recited “gas reaction area” [216].
On the present record, Bour’s arguments that the alleged failure of
Ballance to describe a specific version of chemical vapor deposition in
which the gaseous reactants react in a gas reaction area (rather than, e.g., on
the substrate) are not persuasive of harmful error. Ballance teaches “[t]he
invention makes it possible to perform CVD in an RTP chamber in which
the substrate is heated by lamp radiation from the top side of the substrate.”
(Ballance, col. 2, ll. 54–56.) Bour has not explained why this teaching
would not have suggested that the lamp-illuminated RTP chambers could be
modified for use as CVD chambers. Nor has Bour explained why Moore’s
teaching that “[t]he RTP reactor typically can heat the wafer or wafers at a
rate between 10°C./sec and 400°C./sec” (Moore, col. 8, ll. 30–31), cited by
the Examiner (FR 6, l. 3; Ans. 4, ll. 22) would not have suggested the
heating rate limitation required by claim 25.
Bour argues that Johnsgard does not cure the defects of Moore and
Ballance (Br. 11, 2d para.). Not having been persuaded of harmful error in
the findings of fact regarding Moore and Ballance, we are not persuaded of
error in the further determinations based on Johnsgard regarding the heat
exchanger for the walls.
Bour argues that the p-type layer process described by Sverdlov
would not have been applied to the RTP process described by Moore and
Nulman, and that therefore the rejection of claims 31–34 should be reversed.
(Id. at para. bridging 11–12). This argument is misdirected as the Examiner
Appeal 2013-007605
Application 11/552,474

9
has relied on Ballance as evidence that an RTP apparatus modified to
conduct CVD processes as recited in claim 25 would have been obvious.
Bour argues further that the susceptor of an RTP apparatus may be
used to control the temperature of the substrate, whereas in the claimed
apparatus, the temperature of an overlying gas reaction area is controlled by
the susceptor. (Br. 12, l. 11, to 13, l. 5.) Bour has not, however, directed our
attention to any description in the ʼ474 Specification indicating how the
temperature of the gas reaction area is controlled in a way that is distinct in
the claimed apparatus compared to any of the prior art apparatuses. Nor has
Bour discussed, let alone rebutted, the Examiner’s findings (FR 4, ll. 9–12;
Ans. 3, ll. 29–32) regarding the heating of that area. Thus, to the extent
Bour is arguing that heating the substrate is somehow distinct from heating
the gas reaction area, that argument is not supported by sufficient credible
evidence of record. We decline to credit such unsupported attorney
argument as to issues of fact.
Not being persuaded of harmful error in the appealed rejections,
we affirm.
C. Order
It is ORDERED that the rejection of claims 25–35 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
cdc