Ex Parte Brown et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2016

12563531 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/563,531 09/21/2009 Karl M. Brown
44257 7590 06/23/2016
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP- - Applied Materials
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
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.
13743 Pl/AGS/SPARES 6576
EXAMINER
CHEN, KEATH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/23/2016 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):
Pair_Eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KARL M. BROWN and JASON SCHALLER1
Appeal2014-008288
Application 12/563,531
Technology Center 1700
Before MARK NAGUMO, CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
REN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection2 of
claims 1-11, 13, 14, and 16-19.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ). We affirm substantially for reasons well-stated by the Examiner.
1 The Real Party in Interest is identified as Applied Materials of Santa Clara,
California. (Appeal Brief, filed 27 March 2014 ("Br."), 3.)
2 Final Office Action mailed 22 November 2013 ("Final Rejection"; cited as
"FR.").
3 Claims 12, 15, and 20 have been cancelled. (Br. 22-23.)
Appeal2014-008288
Application 12/563,531
A. Introduction4
OPINION
The subject matter on appeal relates to certain "conditioning
operations" as part of a semiconductor manufacturing process. (Spec. iJ 3.)
"Conventional semiconductor device formation is commonly performed in
one or more process chambers ... which ha[ ve] the capability to process
multiple substrates (e.g., semiconductor wafers) in a controlled processing
environment." (Id.) "To maintain process uniformity and ensure optimal
performance of the process chamber, various conditioning operations are
periodically performed." (Id.) In a physical vapor deposition or PVD
chamber, common conditioning operations are said to include using "plasma
ions to remove oxides or other contaminants ... prior to performing
substrate processes" or applying "a covering ... over material deposited on
process chamber to prevent the material from ... contaminating the
substrate during subsequent processes." (Id.)
The '531 Specification is directed to a device known as "a shutter
disk" used during the conditioning operations in a PVD chamber. The
shutter disk is said to be "suitable for shield[ing] a substrate support in a
physical deposition chamber." (Id. iii! 3, 7.) During the conditioning
operations for the PVD chamber, "a shutter disk may be positioned ... atop
a substrate support disposed in the process chamber to prevent the deposition
of any materials upon the substrate support." (Id. iJ 4.) According to the
'531 Specification, "the shape of the shutter disk is important for both the
4 Application12/563,531, filed21 September2009, claims priority to
Provisional Application 61/099,090, filed 22 September 2008, and is a
continuation-in-part of Application 12/542,501, filed 17 August 2009. We
refer to the '"531 Specification," which we cite as "Spec."
2
Appeal2014-008288
Application 12/563,531
positional accuracy of robotic handling and placement, along with substrate
support coverage" in order to minimize "undesirable exposure of the upper
surface of the substrate support" during operation. (Id.)
Figure 1 of the '531 Specification illustrates a top view of an
exemplary shutter disk whereas Figure 2 illustrates "a partial cross sectional
view from the centerline" of an exemplary shutter disk. (Id. iii! 13, 14.)
They are reproduced below:
FIG. 2
FIG. 1
The '531 Specification provides that shutter disk 100 includes "body
102," "top surface 104," and "bottom surface 106." (Spec. iJ 20.) Shutter
disk 100 also includes "a double step 11 O" which "may be formed in the
outer portion of the bottom surface 106." (Id. iJ 22.) "The double step 110
comprises an inner step 112 and an outer step 114." (Id.) "An inner wall
116 separates the inner step 112 from the bottom surface 106" whereas the
"outer step 114 extends further into the body 102 than the inner step 112 as
referenced from the bottom surface 106." (Id.) "The outer step 114 is
disposed radially outward of the inner step 112 and it coupled to the outer
diameter 108." (Id.)
Representative claim 1 reads:
3
Appeal2014-008288
Application 12/563,531
A shutter disk comprising:
a disk-shaped body configured to cover a substrate support
in a physical vapor deposition chamber and configured to be
transportable within the physical vapor deposition chamber on a
robot blade, the body comprising:
a top surface;
a bottom surface;
an outer diameter disposed between the top surface and the
bottom surface;
and
a double step connecting the bottom surface to the outer
diameter.
(Claims Appendix, Br. 21 (emphasis added).)
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection: 5
A. Claims 1-7, 13, 14, and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Feltsman6 and Kim. 7
A 1. Claims 8-11 and 19 (dependent claims) stand rejected under
35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Feltsman, Kim,
and Brueckner.8
5 Examiner's Answer mailed 15 May 2014 ("Ans.").
6 Michael Feltsman, Shutter Disk and Blade for Physical Vapor Deposition
Chamber, U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0182698 Al (published Sep. 23,
2004).
7 Ki-Chul Kim et al., Apparatus for Processing a Semiconductor Wafer and
Method of Forming the Same, U.S. Patent Publication 2007 /0258075 Al
(published Nov. 8, 2007).
8 Karl Brueckner et al, Textured Chamber Surface, U.S. Patent Publication
2005/0271984 Al (published Dec. 8, 2005). The Examiner also refers to
this reference as "Kim." (FR. 7.)
4
Appeal2014-008288
Application 12/563,531
B. Discussion
Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record.
Claim 19
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that F eltsman discloses a
PVD process using a shutter disk said to "advantageously facilitate[]
protection of a substrate support during conditioning processes." (FR. 4;
Feltsman iJ 62.) The shutter disk (114) is said to include a movable shadow
ring (158) "configured to confine deposition of a portion of the substrate
exposed through the center of the shadow ring." (FR. 4; Feltsman iii! 27,
29.) Figure 1 of Feltsman, illustrating a semiconductor processing chamber
that includes shutter disk 114, is reproduced below:
9 Claims 2--4, 6-7, 13, 14, and 16-18 stand or fall with claim 1. (Br. 9.) The
patentability of claim 5 is argued under a separate heading and we
accordingly address it separately. (See Br. 14.)
5
Appeal2014-008288
Application 12/563,531
Fig . .1
CONTROLLER
f!:~o"RY]- 192
[Crum--}--- 194
SUPPORT ""'.
CIRCUITS ·-i,,"
··· 126
Figure 1 of Feltsman discloses substrate support 104 at a lower
position so that "substrate 112 [may] be removed from the chamber 100 ...
while clearing the ring 158 and shield 162." (Feltsman iii! 28, 30.) Upon
substrate support 104 being "moved into the upper position for processing[,]
the substrate 112 is disposed on the substrate support 104 and engages the
shadow ring 158, lifting the shadow ring 158 from the shield 162." (Id.)
During processing, "the shutter disk 114 may be transferred (by utilizing the
lift pins) to the substrate support 104 during the [conditioning processes]."
(Id. iJ 33.)
Figure 6 of F eltsman, illustrating a shutter disk 414 disposed on a
substrate support 404, is reproduced below:
6
Appeal2014-008288
Application 12/563,531
506
522-
406"
502
.....____,__.,,._,
596
Fig. 6
508 414
~.........-.-...___...,,___~"
406
The Examiner finds that Figure 6 of Feltsman additionally discloses "lip
522" which "allows the shutter disk 414 to be positioned on the substrate
404
support 404 in an orientation that prevents the upper surface 602 of the
substrate support 404 from being exposed during selected conditioning
processes while maintaining the center pad 520 and recess 524 in a spaced-
apart relation relative to the substrate support 404."
(F eltsman iJ 61 (cited in FR. 4 ). )
The Examiner finds that Kim discloses a semiconductor
manufacturing process using a "semiconductor wafer processing apparatus"
that "may include a chuck and/or a focus ring." (FR. 4 (citing Kim title, iii!
2, 53, 62).) The chuck may be used to hold a wafer, whereas the focus ring
is said to "be disposed surrounding the chuck." (Kim Abstract.) The
Examiner finds that Kim expressly states that "the teachings described
7
Appeal2014-008288
Application 12/563,531
herein may be applied to ... physical vapor deposition." (FR. 4 (citing Kim
ii 62).) The Examiner finds that the focus ring configuration shows "a
double step upper surface above the top surface of the chuck." (FR. 4; Ans.
6.) The Kim reference discloses that the focus ring may be used to
"concentrate plasma on an upper portion perpendicular to the wafer."
(Kim ii 34.) Figure 7 of Kim, reproduced below, illustrates the focus ring:
Fig. 7
370
\
\i
Figure 7 of Kim "is a schematic view illustrating an example focus ring[.]"
(Id. ii 22.)
Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that "it would have
been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the
movable shadow ring" of Feltsman "with the focus ring" in Kim to achieve
"deposition uniformity" as required in Kim as well as flow pattern control
around the wafer which is "beneficial" to both etching and PVD processes.
(FR. 4; Ans. 5-6.) The Examiner further finds, as a result of the
replacement, "the bottom lip face 526 of the lip 522" shown in Figure 6 of
Feltsman "would have been re-shaped to a double step to match the double
8
Appeal2014-008288
Application 12/563,531
surface of the focus ring [] for the purpose of minimizing particle generation
and potential damage to the substrate support 404 during conditioning
process, as required by [the teachings in F eltsman iJ 61]." (FR. 4.)
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's finding that the focus ring in
Kim includes "a double step upper surface above the stop surface of the
chuck." (See, e.g., Br. 9-13, Reply 2-5; FR. 4.) Appellants, however, argue
that the Examiner erred in failing to recognize that "each embodiment [in
Kim] describing the focus ring is utilized in an etching process" which
should be distinguished from the PVD process at issue. (Br. 9-1 O; see also
Reply 2-3.) 10
"[A] prior art reference must be considered in its entirety and is not
limited to preferred embodiments or specific working examples." In re
Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976). Here, the Kim reference
discloses that "[ s ]emiconductor device manufacturing may include various
processes, for example, oxidation, masking, photoresist coating, etching,
diffusion, stacking, etc." and that the particular "semiconductor wafer
processing apparatus [that] include[s] a chuck and a focus ring" "may be
applied to semiconductor devices for performing other plasma processes,
including chemical vapor deposition and physical vapor deposition." (Kim
iii! 2, 62.)
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's determination that Kim and
Feltsman are analogous art but argue that etching processes "generally
remove material from a substrate as opposed to deposition processes, which
deposit material on a substrate." (Br. 8.) While the manufacturing of
semiconductors requires multiple stages of processing, Appellants do not
10 Reply Brief filed 11 July 2014 ("Reply").
9
Appeal2014-008288
Application 12/563,531
explain how the difference between etching and PVD may be applied to the
claimed shutter disk, in particular when used for the "conditioning
operations" for a PVD chamber. (See '5 31 Spec. ii 18 ("The inventive
apparatus includes a shutter disk for use in conditioning operations of
process chambers.").) Appellants do not explain how the difference between
etching and PVD may to applied to the "chuck" disclosed in Kim which
serves to hold a wafer as does the substrate support in the '531 Specification,
or the "focus ring" that surrounds the chuck which shares the "double step"
structure that shields the substrate support in the '531 Specification. (See
Br. 8.) Appellants do not explain how the difference between etching and
PVD would have led a skilled artisan to exclude components such as the
focus ring from being used in the PVD chamber. Appellants also do not
provide evidence in the record supporting restricting the disclosure of Kim
to one particular aspect of the semiconductor manufacturing process.
Appellants have not pointed us to any harmful error in the Examiner's
finding that Kim expressly provides that a "semiconductor wafer processing
apparatus" "may be applied to ... physical vapor deposition" as well as
etching. (See Ans. 2, 5 (citing Kim ii 62).) We accordingly are not
persuaded that the Examiner erred harmfully in this aspect of the
obviousness analysis.
Appellants next argue, without citation to the record, that "[i]f a focus
ring was to be used in the chamber of Feltsman, the focus ring would be on
or incorporated into the shadow ring because the focus ring must be exposed
to the plasma in order to function to effect processing results." (Br. 10.)
Reasoning that "covering the focus ring with a shadow ring would render the
focus ring unsatisfactory for its intended purpose," Appellants argue that
10
Appeal2014-008288
Application 12/563,531
"knowledge of Kim's ring design cannot provide motivation to modify the
bottom surface of the shutter disk taught by Feltsman." (Id.)
Instead of "incorporat[ing]" the focus ring with the shadow ring as
asserted by Appellants, however, the Examiner finds that a skilled artisan
would have had the knowledge to "replace[] the movable shadow ring ...
with the focus ring" to achieve "deposition uniformity," which is an
objective stated in Kim. (Ans. 6 (citing Kim iii! 6, 62).) Appellants'
argument, directed to "covering the focus ring with a shadow ring," does not
address the Examiner's findings with regard to the skilled artisan's
knowledge to replace one with another, and accordingly we are not
persuaded that the Examiner erred harmfully in these fact findings.
Appellants further argue, without citing evidence in the record, that
replacing the shadow ring with the focus ring would not work "because the
focus ring is not adapted to mate with the shield or be suspended above the
substrate support." (Br. 11 see also Reply 3 ("In no way does the utilization
of Kim's focus rings suggest that the topography of the substrate support
would incorporate a double step.").) Appellants argue that the "substantially
flat" substrate support shown in Feltsman would not provide "any adequate
reasoning as to why a non-flat substrate support would be desirable[.]" (Id.)
"Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to
combine their specific structures." In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA
1973). Appellants' assertions do not cite to evidence in the record (such as
component parts labeled in the figures) and do not dispute the Examiner's
finding that a skilled artisan would have had the knowledge to reshape the
shutter disk upon the replacement of the shadow ring "for the purpose of
minimizing particle generation and potential damage to the substrate support
11
Appeal2014-008288
Application 12/563,531
404" as disclosed in Feltsman. (See, e.g., Br. 11-12; FR. 5 (citing Feltsman
iJ 61).) Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the difference in the precise
arrangement of the components of F eltsman and Kim would have led a
person of ordinary skill in the art, informed of both Feltsman and Kim, to
find it non-obvious to use a combination of a focus ring, as taught by Kim,
in the shutter disk taught by F eltsman.
Appellants next assert, without citation to evidence in the record, that
combining the structures in F eltsman and Kim "would only increase the
probability of particle generation near the substrate supporting surface
because of the increased contact area between of the double step" and "cause
undesirable contact between the shutter disk and the focus rings, resulting in
undesirable particle generation." (Br. 11; see also Reply 4-5.) Similarly
without citation to the record, Appellants argue that combining the structures
in these references would require "a mating step" and cause "the ring and the
disk [to] become bonded together." (Br. 12.) Without providing a reason (if
any) that the possible "mating step" or the possibility of "the ring and the
disk becom[ing] bonded together" directly causes the possibility of "the
shutter disk [] becom[ ing] adhered to the underlying structure," Appellants
conclude that "adhering the shutter disk to the underlying structure would
render the physical vapor deposition chamber inoperable for its intended
purpose." (Id. at 12; see also Reply 4.)
Appellants' contentions with regard to the possible "undesirable
particle generation" and inoperable PVD chamber are not supported by
evidence in the record and "cannot take the place of evidence." In re
Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) ("Attorney's argument in a
brief cannot take the place of evidence."). The Examiner in fact provides an
12
Appeal2014-008288
Application 12/563,531
extensive analysis finding that the claimed shutter disk may have a similar
issue related to the possible bonding between the disk and the substrate but
that neither the claim nor the '531 Specification provides a solution to such a
problem. (Ans. 10 (discussing the bonding problem and conversations
between the Examiner and Appellants on the same).) The Examiner also
finds that the claim at issue does not require the shutter disk to avoid any
particular "undesirable particle generation" or possible bonding among
components. (Id. at 8-10.) We therefore decline to import into the claim
limitations that are not recited and find Appellants' argument unpersuasive
to show patentability of the claim as written. In re Lundberg, 244 F.2d 543,
548 (CCP A 1957) ("Limitations in the specification not included in the
claim[ s] may not be relied upon to impart patentability to an otherwise
unpatentable claim.").
Based on the foregoing, no harmful error has been shown in the
Examiner's findings that claim 1 would have been obvious to a skilled
artisan based on replacing the shadow ring in the shutter disk of Feltsman
with the focus ring in Kim. (Ans. 4-5); see KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007) (holding that it is not necessary to find precise
teachings in a particular reference directed to the specific subject matter
claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would employ can be taken into account). 11
11 Appellants also argue against "an alternative combination" of Kim based
on F eltsman. (Br. 15-17; Reply 6.) Order of references is not material in an
obviousness analysis. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491 (CCPA 1961). Because we
have addressed the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 based on F eltsman and
Kim, it is unnecessary for us to address the alternative combination. (See
Br. 15; see also Ans. 12 (arguing that various arguments asserted by
Appellants would not apply in the alternative combination).)
13
Appeal2014-008288
Application 12/563,531
Claim 5
Appellants argue that the Examiner failed to provide a motivation to
include in the shutter disk "an annular groove formed in the bottom surface
disposed radially inward of the double step" as recited in claim 5 (dependent
from claim 1). Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's finding that "the
shutter disk of Feltsman teaches a groove," which is recess 524 shown in
Figure 5 (showing "a sectional view of a blade and a shutter disk of [a]
shutter disk mechanism[,]" Feltsman iJ2 l) reproduced below:
498--
418
\
442
.Fig. 5
506
\
414
,,___,-'-.,......._-i'--'--""' . \.. -- 5 !4
l
\
522
Appellants argue, without citing to a particular component in Kim, that
because the "support of Kim is planar," "modifying the shutter disk of
Feltsman to match the support and focus ring[] of Kim would teach away
from forming a groove ... " and that "there is no feature on Kim's support
14
Appeal2014-008288
Application 12/563,531
that would necessitate the formation of a groove in the shutter disk." (Br.
14; see also Reply 5.)
"The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted).
Appellants, based solely on the precise configuration of the structures
disclosed in the references, have not shown harmful error in the Examiner's
finding that it is within the skilled artisan's capability to arrive at a shutter
disk with an annular grove based on the collective teachings in Feltsman and
Kim. That is, the Appellants have not shown harmful error in the finding
that a skilled artisan, given the "recess 524" disclosed in Feltsman which
"allows the bulk of the shutter disk 414 to remain clear of the blade 418 12
while the shutter disk 414 is seated on the blade 418" would have included
recess 524 when replacing the shadow ring with the focus ring. (See Ans.
10-11 (citing Feltsman iJ 59 disclosing recess 524).)
Because Appellants do not provide evidence showing that either
Feltsman or Kim "criticizes, discredits or otherwise discourages" the
inclusion of a groove, we are also not persuaded that either reference teaches
away from the structure recited in claim 5. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195,
1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
12 Blade 418 is a rotatable component that is used to seat the shutter disk 414
"in a predefined position (e.g., coaxially) on the substrate support 404."
(Feltsman iii! 49, 53.)
15
Appeal2014-008288
Application 12/563,531
Claims 8-11 & 19
Under the heading of "Claims 8-11, and 19 are not obvious over
Feltsman and Kim in view of Brueckner," Appellants provide no argument
with regard to claims 8-11 and 19 but instead argue the patentability of
claims 1 and 16 based on Brueckner. (Br. 18 ("With regard to claim 1 ...
[and] claim 16, Brueckner fails to teach .. . ");see also Reply 7.) Claims 1
and 16 stand rejected based on Feltsman and Kim alone and we have
addressed the obviousness rejection of these claims. Appellants therefore
have not raised substantive arguments for the separate patentability of claims
8-11and19.
C. Order
It is 0 RD ERED that the rejection of claims 1-11, 13, 14, and 16-19 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a) (1) (iv).
AFFIRMED
16