Ex Parte Cuvalci et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2015

12255492 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 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.
12/255,492 10/21/2008 OLKAN CUVALCI 013864
USA/MDP/L/B/CROCKE
3432
44843 7590 06/30/2015
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT M. WALLACE
2112 EASTMAN AVENUE, SUITE 102
VENTURA, CA 93003
EXAMINER
KITT, STEPHEN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1717
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2015 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 OLKAN CUVALCI,
YU CHANG, WILLIAM KUANG,
ANQING CUI, and SESHADRI GANGULI
____________

Appeal 2013-007850
Application 12/255,492
Technology Center 1700
____________
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, GEORGE C. BEST, and
MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1‒3 and 5‒10 of Application
12/255,492 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. (September 19,
2012). Appellants1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE.

1 Applied Materials, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal 2013-007850
Application 12/255,492
2
BACKGROUND
The ’492 Application describes a bridge assembly, including a gas
supply conduit, for a plasma reactor. Spec. ¶ 1. The bridge assembly in
question extends from the side wall to the ceiling of the reactor and has a
supply conduit equipped with an apparatus that prevents plasma ignition of
the gas within the supply tube. Id. ¶¶ 1‒2.
Claim 1, the ’492 Application’s sole independent claim, is reproduced
below:
1. A plasma reactor for processing a workpiece,
comprising:
a cylindrical side wall;
a ceiling, said ceiling comprising a gas distribution
showerhead, said showerhead comprising a conductive
electrode insulated from said side wall;
a power source coupled to said conductive electrode;
an electrically insulating hollow tube, said tube having a
pair of ends, said tube being supported at one of said ends over
said cylindrical side wall and being supported at the other of
said ends over said electrode;
a set of conductive rings on and surrounding said tube
and spaced from one another along the length of said tube;
plural electrically resistive elements, each of said
resistive elements comprising a pair of connectors comprising
wire conductors, respective ones of said resistive elements
connected at their connectors between respective pairs of said
rings to form a series resistor assembly having a pair of ends,
the connector at one of said ends being coupled to the electrical
potential of said side wall, and the connector at the other one of
said ends being coupled to the electrical potential of said ceiling
electrode; and
a side wall manifold comprising a first sealing face
having a gas supply port connected to said one end of said
hollow tube, and a ceiling manifold comprising a second
Appeal 2013-007850
Application 12/255,492
3
sealing face having a gas receiving port connected to said other
end of said hollow tube, said gas receiving port being in
communication with said gas distribution showerhead.
App. Br. 9‒10 (Claims App’x).
REJECTION
Claims 1‒3 and 5‒10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Wang2 and von Campe.3 Final Act. 2.
DISCUSSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons set forth in
Appellants’ Appeal and Reply Briefs. We add the following for emphasis.
As the Federal Circuit has explained, “rejections on obviousness
grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there
must be 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).
In this case, the Examiner’s rejection proposes modifying Wang’s
plasma reactor by moving von Stampe’s plasma ignition apparatus to the
plasma reactor’s bridge assembly. See Ans. 5. Von Stampe’s plasma
ignition assembly surrounds, but does not contact, the workpiece. Von
Stampe col. 6, ll. 43‒53, Fig. 6. In the proposed modification, von Stampe’s
apparatus would contact the gas supply tube and serve the purpose of
preventing plasma ignition. See Ans. 5.

2 US 5,755,886, issued May 26, 1998.
3 US 4,915,978, issued April 10, 1990.
Appeal 2013-007850
Application 12/255,492
4
To support this rejection adequately, the Examiner must provide
adequate reasoning supported by evidence to explain why, in the absence of
hindsight, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
would have made the proposed changes. The Examiner has not done so.
Indeed, the Examiner’s reasoning supports Appellants’ contention that
the rejection is the result of hindsight and must be reversed. For example,
the Examiner argues that “one of ordinary skill in the art would easily come
across von Campe et al.’s teaching by performing a very simple text search
in plasma processing patents, in the exact same manner as performed by the
Examiner.” Ans. 8. This argument is unpersuasive because an examiner’s
prior art searches are the epitome of hindsight, and the Examiner has not
explained why or how a person of ordinary skill in the art would formulate
the “simple text search” in the absence of hindsight.
On the record before us, we reverse.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1‒3 and 5‒10 of the ’492 Application is
reversed.
REVERSED

lp