Ex Parte Chen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 25, 2010

10281079 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 25, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte LING CHEN, VINCENT KU, DIEN-YEH WU, HUA CHUNG,
ALAN OUYE, NORMAN NAKASHIMA, and MEI CHANG
____________

Appeal 2009-003053
Application 10/281,079
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: March 25, 2010
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and
PETER F. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-8, 10, 12, and 21-36. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.

Appeal 2009-003053
Application 10/281,079

2
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a substrate processing
chamber including a substrate support and a chamber lid wherein the lid
provides an expanding channel at a central portion thereof and a tapered
bottom surface that radially extends therefrom to a peripheral portion of the
lid and substantially covers the substrate support (Spec. paras. 0007, 0009,
and 0034- 0036). As described in the Specification and as shown in Figures
1 and 11, for example, Appellants’ employ the term “expanding channel” to
refer to a gas passageway with a diameter (cross-section) that increases in a
direction toward the substrate receiving surface of the substrate support and
which passageway is formed by the chamber lid (Spec., paras. 0066-68,
0072, and 0073). Moreover, Appellants' claim term “tapered bottom
surface” refers to the downwardly sloping bottom surface of the chamber lid
as it is disposed in extending from the expanding channel, which tapered
surface is disclosed as providing for relatively uniform gas flow area and,
consequently, gas flow velocity (Spec., paras. 0035 and 0036). The chamber
is disclosed as being useful for atomic layer deposition (Spec., paras. 0005
and 0006). At least one valve and associated gas conduit is coupled to a gas
inlet within the expanding channel of the lid (Spec., para. 0007, Figs. 1 and
11). In at least one embodiment, the apparatus comprises one or more
valves coupled to the gradually expanding channel via one or more gas
conduits disposed at an angle orthogonal from an expanding channel axis
and a choke may be disposed on the chamber lid near the tapered bottom
surface perimeter (Spec. 0008 and 0072).
Appeal 2009-003053
Application 10/281,079

3
Claims 1, 10, and 21 are illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A chamber, comprising:

a chamber body;

a substrate support at least partially disposed within the
chamber body and having a substrate receiving surface;

a chamber lid comprising an expanding channel
extending downwardly from a central portion of the chamber
lid and a tapered bottom surface extending radially from the
expanding channel to a peripheral portion of the chamber lid,
wherein the tapered bottom surface and the expanding channel
share a co-linear symmetry axis, and wherein the tapered
bottom surface is shaped and sized to substantially cover the
substrate receiving surface;

one or more valves in fluid communication with the
expanding channel; and

one or more gas sources in fluid communication with
each valve.

10. A chamber, comprising:

a substrate support having a substrate receiving surface;

a chamber lid comprising an expanding channel
extending from a central longitudinal axis of the chamber lid
and comprising a tapered bottom surface extending radially
from the expanding channel to a peripheral portion of the
chamber lid;

one or more gas conduits connected to an upper portion
of the expanding channel, wherein the one or more gas conduits
are connected at an angle normal to the expanding channel from
a center of the expanding channel;

Appeal 2009-003053
Application 10/281,079

4
one or more valves disposed below the expanding
channel and coupled to the expanding channel via the one or
more gas conduits; and

a choke disposed on the chamber lid adjacent a perimeter
of the tapered bottom surface.

21. A gas delivery assembly, comprising:
a chamber lid comprising an expanding channel
extending downwardly from a central portion of the chamber
lid and a tapered bottom surface extending from the expanding
channel to a peripheral portion of the chamber lid;

one or more gas conduits connected to an upper portion
of the expanding channel, wherein the one or more gas conduits
are connected at an angle orthogonal from a longitudinal axis of
the expanding channel; and

one or more valves disposed below the expanding
channel and coupled to the expanding channel via the one or
more gas conduits.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Oetiker 4,597,405 Jul. 1, 1986
Conger 4,761,269 Aug. 2, 1988
Umotoy 6,302,965 B1 Oct. 16, 2001

The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection.1
Claims 1-8, 10, 12, and 21-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Umotoy in view of Conger. Claims 29-36 stand

1 The Examiner has withdrawn the § 103(a) rejections of appealed claims
wherein Hassan (U.S. Patent No. 4,270,999) was employed as a reference in
combination with other prior art (Ans. 2-3).
Appeal 2009-003053
Application 10/281,079

5
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Umotoy in
view of Conger and Oetiker.
We reverse the stated rejections.
In the stated rejections, the Examiner relies on Umotoy for disclosing
an expanding channel at 30 (Fig. 1) that allegedly corresponds to the
expanding channel (increasing diameter passageway) required by
independent claim 10 and the claims depending therefrom, and an expanding
channel at 46 (Fig. 1) that allegedly corresponds to the expanding channel
requirements of independent claims 1 and 21 or the separately rejected
independent claim 29 expanding channel limitation, as well as for the
corresponding dependent claims (Ans. 3-6 and 9-11). Additionally, the
Examiner relies on Umotoy for allegedly disclosing a tapered bottom surface
(40) extending from an expanding channel to a peripheral portion of a
chamber lid that allegedly corresponds to the tapered bottom surface
variously claimed (Ans. 3-6 and 9-11).
Appellants argue, inter alia, that the Examiner has not established that
Umotoy discloses a tapered bottom surface extending from an expanded
channel to a peripheral portion of the chamber lid, as variously claimed
(App. Br. 18-22; Reply Br. 5-8). For example, Appellants maintain that the
Examiner has not established that: (1) the combination of element (46) and
(40) of Umotoy corresponds to the expanding channel and tapered bottom
surface extending therefrom to a peripheral portion of a chamber lid as
recited in any of independent claims 1, 21 and/or 29; and (2) the passages
(30) of Umotoy correspond to the expanding channel, as recited in
independent claim 10 and/or that the combination of the passages (30) and
element 40 of Umotoy correspond to the expanding channel and the tapered
Appeal 2009-003053
Application 10/281,079

6
bottom surface extending therefrom to a peripheral portion of the chamber
lid, as recited in independent claim 10. Id.

PRINCIPAL ISSUES/CONCLUSIONS
Has the Examiner reasonably established:
(1) elements (46) and (40) of Umotoy satisfy the requirements for a
chamber lid having an expanding channel and a tapered bottom surface
extending therefrom to a chamber lid peripheral portion, as called for in
claims 1, 21, and/or 29; and/or
(2) element (30) of Umotoy satisfies the requirements for a chamber
lid having an expanding channel extending from a central longitudinal axis
of the chamber and/or elements (30) and (40) combined satisfy the
expanding channel and tapered bottom surface limitations, as recited in
claim 10?
We answer these questions in the negative.

FACTUAL FINDINGS
Umotoy discloses a dispersion plate arranged for use in flowing
vaporized compounds onto semiconductor surfaces. The apparatus includes
a processing chamber (12), a substrate platform (14) for supporting a
semiconductor wafer (16), a manifold (18) and a dispersion plate (20) (col.
2, ll. 50-60).
The dispersion plate (20) of Umotoy, which is made of a disc-like
solid block of metal, is secured to an upper wall (25) of the chamber (12)
(col. 3, ll. 16-35; Fig. 1). The dispersion plate (20) has a center axis (28), an
axial aligned hole (33), and a number of radial extending passages (30, 32)
Appeal 2009-003053
Application 10/281,079

7
each radial passage having a diameter and arranged in a downwardly
inclined manner relative to the axis (28) (col. 3, ll. 48-54).
Umotoy’s plate (20) includes a bottom output face (40), which has
annular grooves (42 and 44) aligned with output ends of passages (30 and
32), and a funnel (46) aligned with the outlet end of hole (33) located in the
output face, which cut out features in the output face eliminate much of the
flat surface that would otherwise be present at the bottom of the dispersion
plate (col. 3, ll. 42-46, col. 3, l. 66 - col. 4, l. 17, col. 4, ll. 36-49; col. 5, ll.
51-64; see Figs. 1-4).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
It is well settled that the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
non-patentability resides with the Examiner. See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
A sustainable obviousness rejection must be accompanied by “some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(quoted with approval in KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007)).
Rejections based on § 103(a) must rest on a factual basis with these
facts being interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention
from the prior art. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).

ANALYSIS
Concerning independent claims 1 and 21, and their respective
dependent claims, the Examiner relies on element (46) of Umotoy as
Appeal 2009-003053
Application 10/281,079

8
corresponding to the claimed expanding (increasing diameter) channel and
maintains that Umotoy’s element 40 (output face of the dispersion plate (20)
corresponds to the claimed requirements for a tapered bottom surface for the
called for chamber lid, which tapered bottom surface is required to extend
from the claimed expanding channel to a peripheral portion of the recited
chamber lid. However, as correctly argued by Appellants, Umotoys’
element (46) is a funnel shaped-cutout from the bottom of dispersion plate
(20) and Umotoy’s element (40) is the grooved dispersion plate output face
(App. Br. 18-19; Reply Br. 5-6).
Here, the Examiner has not persuasively explained how Umotoy’s
dispersion plate output face (40), which includes grooves (42) and (44)
cutout therein, provides a tapered bottom surface (i.e., a downwardly sloping
surface) extending from element (46) to a peripheral portion of a chamber
lid (dispersion plate), as required by claim 21, much less such a radial
extending tapered bottom surface that is shaped and sized to substantially
cover a substrate receiving surface (claim 1). In this regard, we note that the
grooves 42 and 44 result in an output face (40) for the dispersion plate of
Umotoy that can hardly be considered to have a bottom surface that tapers
(downwardly slopes) from element (46) to a peripheral edge of the
dispersion plate. The Examiner has not adequately explained how the
dispersion plate surfaces that define the groove cut outs (42 and 44)
constitutes a tapering surface of a chamber lid bottom that extends from an
expanding channel to a peripheral edge of the chamber lid, as argued by
Appellants (see Ans. 14 and Reply Br. 6).
Concerning independent claim 10 and the claims which depend
therefrom, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s reliance on element
Appeal 2009-003053
Application 10/281,079

9
(30) of Umotoy for allegedly showing an expanding channel corresponding
to that required by claim 10 is misplaced. This is so because elements 30 of
Umotoy have not been shown by the Examiner to have other than a constant
diameter, as disclosed by Umotoy (diameter of about 0.25 inches), as argued
by Appellants (App. Br. 19; Umotoy, col. 5, ll. 51-53). Moreover, and to the
extent that the Examiner is relying on the groove (42) for showing an
expanding channel (Ans. 16), we note that this expansion channel (groove
(42) has not been established by the Examiner as extending from the central
longitudinal axis of a chamber lid, as is evident by a review of Figures 1-3 of
Umotoy.
The Examiner does not rely on Conger to establish the obviousness of
the afore-discussed claim features. In this regard, the Examiner does not
persuasively articulate how any of the applied prior art teachings would have
collectively suggested the use of a chamber lid having an expanding channel
and tapered bottom surface, as claimed. Consequently, we need not discuss
the other arguments advanced by Appellants. On this record, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness position as to the first-stated rejection.
Regarding the Examiner’s second stated obviousness rejection, the
Examiner applies Umotoy in a similar manner as Umotoy was applied to
claim 1 in the first stated rejection to show the common claim features;
namely, a chamber lid having an expanding channel and tapering bottom
surface as found in independent claim 29 and the dependent claims subject
to the second stated rejection. For the reasons discussed above in connection
with the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner has not adequately explained
how Umotoy’s dispersion plate output face (40), which includes grooves
(42) and (44), satisfies the limitation in claim 29 of a tapered bottom surface
Appeal 2009-003053
Application 10/281,079

10
extending radially from the expanding channel to a peripheral portion of a
chamber lid. Moreover, the Examiner does not rely on Conger and/or
Oetiker for establishing the obviousness of these claim features.
It follows that we will not sustain the Examiner’s second stated
rejections for reasons set forth above and in Appellants’ Briefs.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.

REVERSED

kmm

PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX
3040 POST OAK BOULEVARD, SUITE 1500
HOUSTON, TX 77056