Ex Parte Fang et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 10, 201913793454 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/793,454 03/11/2013 91286 7590 05/14/2019 Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (Lam) P.O. Box 828 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Tong Fang 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. 1797-2US 1004 EXAMINER CROWELL, ANNA M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1716 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/14/2019 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): sstevens@hdp.com troymailroom@hdp.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TONG FANG, YUNSANG KIM, KEECHAN KIM, and GEORGE STOJAKOVIC Appeal2018-006975 Application 13/793,454 Technology Center 1700 Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. REN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2018-006975 Application 13/793,454 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection2 of claims 12-14, 21-35, 37, and 38. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to "a bevel etcher wherein a bevel edge of a semiconductor wafer is subjected to plasma cleaning." Spec. ,r 4. 3 The Specification describes a substrate with "a dielectric layer overlying a top surface and a bevel edge of the substrate, the layer extending above and below an apex of the bevel edge." Id. ,r 3. Figure 13(A) (reproduced below) illustrates "a partial cross-sectional view of silicon substrate 1300 with overlying TEOS [ tetraethylorthosilicate] layer 131 O" which "covers top 1 The real party in interest is identified as "Lam Research Corporation." Appeal Brief of January 9, 2018 ("Br."), 3. 2 Final Office Action of September 11, 2017 ("Final Act."). In this opinion, we also refer to the Examiner's Answer of May 4, 2018 ("Ans.") and the Reply Brief of June 25, 2018 ("Reply Br."). 3 Application No. 13/793,454 ("Spec."). 2 Appeal2018-006975 Application 13/793,454 surface 1300A and wraps around a portion of bevel edge I300C, covering apex A." Id. ,r 69. Figure I3(A) of the Specification showing a bevel edge pre-cleaning. "The bevel edge is cleaned with ... plasma so as to remove the layer below the apex without removing all of the layer above the apex." Id. ,r 3. More specifically, the Specification provides a plasma exclusion zone (PEZ) ring to exclude the plasma for cleaning the bevel edge and for controlling the bevel etch film profile using plasma exclusion zone rings larger than the wafer diameter. Id. ,r,r 29, 72. Figure 4A (reproduced below) illustrates PEZ ring 302 having a lower portion 302a and the Specification provides that 3 Appeal2018-006975 Application 13/793,454 varying the outer diameter of 302 affects the cleaning profile of the bevel edge. 302 I 302a 402 TOP PEZ i < i -----~ ......................... ._.._ __ _L ______ , _ _ 218 Figure 4A of the Specification showing a configurable PEZ ring. According to the Specification, "[t]he configuration of the PEZ ring 302 thus determines the top PEZ 402 that is equal to the radius of the substrate 218 minus the distance D1." Spec. ,r 33. When D1 is negative, "the outer diameter of a lower portion of the upper PEZ ring is greater than the substrate diameter" which achieves the cleaning profile illustrated in Figure 13(C). Id. ,r,r 68, 71, 73. Figure 13(C) (reproduced below) illustrates that, after such 4 Appeal2018-006975 Application 13/793,454 cleaning, layer 1310 is removed from the apex A but remains on the upper portion of the bevel edge 1300C. Figure 13(C) of the Specification showing a bevel edge post-cleaning. Claim 12, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 12. A bevel etcher to etch a bevel edge of a semiconductor wafer having a predetermined outer diameter, wherein the bevel edge is subjected to plasma during a cleaning operation in the bevel etcher, the bevel etcher comprising: a power electrode having a cylindrical upper facing portion; a first plasma-exclusion-zone (PEZ) ring supported on the support, wherein the first PEZ ring has a top surface on which the semiconductor wafer is supported; a dielectric component disposed above the power electrode and having a cylindrical bottom portion opposing the cylindrical upper facing portion of the power electrode; a second PEZ ring surrounding the cylindrical bottom portion of the dielectric component, wherein the second PEZ ring is disposed above and opposes the first PEZ ring, wherein a size of an annular space between the first PEZ ring and the second PEZ ring limits the extent to which the bevel edge is cleaned by the plasma, wherein the second PEZ ring is configured to guide a reaction gas along an outer peripheral edge of the second PEZ ring; and at least one radio frequency (RF) power source adapted to energize the reaction gas into the plasma during the cleaning operation to etch the bevel edge, 5 Appeal2018-006975 Application 13/793,454 wherein the first PEZ ring and the second PEZ ring are adapted to respectively shield the power electrode and the dielectric component from the plasma during the cleaning operation, and wherein a bottom portion of the second P EZ ring closest to the semiconductor wafer has an outer diameter at least equal to the predetermined outer diameter of the semiconductor wafer to limit, during the cleaning operation, an amount of etching of the semiconductor wafer radially inward from the bevel edge. Claims Appendix (Br. 31-32) ( emphasis added). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Fujimoto Choi Lim Park Koshiishi Sexton4 us 5,413,673 US 2004/0238488 Al US 2005/0173067 Al US 2005/0263484 Al US 2007 /0169891 Al US 2009/0114244 Al REJECTIONS May 9, 1995 Dec. 2, 2004 Aug. 11, 2005 Dec. 1, 2005 July 26, 2007 May 7, 2009 Claims 12-14 and 38 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Lim in view of Park. Final Act. 2. Claims 21, 25-29, 32, 33, and 35 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Lim in view of Park and Fujimoto. Final Act. 7. Claim 22 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Lim in view of Park, Fujimoto, and Choi. Final Act. 12. 4 The Examiner corrects the citation to the Sexton reference in the Examiner's Answer. Ans. 2. 6 Appeal2018-006975 Application 13/793,454 Claims 23, 24, 34, and 37 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lim in view of Park and Koshiishi. Final Act. 13. Claims 30 and 31 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lim in view of Park, Fujimoto, and Sexton. Final Act. 14; Ans. 2. 5 OPINION Rejection of Claim 126 The Examiner rejects claim 12 based on the combined teachings of Park and Lim. Final Act. 2. For the claim limitation at issue on appeal, "a bottom portion of the second PEZ ring closest to the semiconductor wafer has an outer diameter at least equal to the predetermined outer diameter of the semiconductor wafer," the Examiner finds that Park discloses shielding member 160 and that the edge of wafer W may be cleaned by adjusting shielding rings 162/164/166/168 of the shielding member 160. Id. at 3 ( citing Park ,r 50, Fig. 3 (reproduced below)). 5 The Examiner entered a new ground of rejection of claims 30 and 31 because the previous rejection was based on an incorrectly cited reference. Ans. 2. 6 Because Appellants do not argue claims 13, 14, 21-29, 32, 33, 35, 37, and 38 separately, they stand or fall with claim 12. Br. 26, 27 (arguing that the additional references do not cure the deficiencies of Lim and Park); see also 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). 7 Appeal2018-006975 Application 13/793,454 120 t 160 ·~·-····---../'>..---······ .... '162 164 1£6 '.168 '"'\ \ J Figure 3 of Park showing a cross-sectional view of shielding members. The Examiner finds that the prior art structure "can operate to clean a smaller sized wafer" thus meeting the claim limitation. Id. Appellants disagree and argue that "the cleaning of a smaller size wafer is not shown in the references." Br. 23; Reply Br. 15. A proper obviousness analysis, however, does not require a verbatim teaching from the prior art as Appellants argue. Obviousness is instead analyzed based on the premise that "teachings are to be viewed as they would have been viewed by one of ordinary skill." In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, Appellants acknowledge that "Park discloses adjusting a size of an etching area radially inward of a bevel edge of a semiconductor wafer by adjusting positions of rings 162, 164, 166, 168" and do not dispute the Examiner's finding that the prior art structure "can operate to clean a smaller sized wafer." Compare Br. 23-24 ( concluding, without specifying any structural differences between the recited apparatus and the prior art, that "the claimed structural relationship is not shown or suggested by the references"), with Final Act. 3. Appellants' remaining arguments discussing case law and MPEP likewise do not structurally distinguish the claim from 8 Appeal2018-006975 Application 13/793,454 the prior art. See Br. 10-17 ( discussing numerous cases and MPEP provisions without addressing the apparatus in Park), 18-19 (asserting that neither Lim nor Park teaches a particular way/location the plasma is supplied onto the wafer which is not a feature recited in the apparatus claim at issue), 19 (arguing that recited apparatus "is less likely to etch areas radially inward of the bevel edge than the systems of Lim and Park" which is not a feature recited in the apparatus claim at issue), 21 ( arguing that claim 12 defines the structure of the PEZ ring based on the diameter of a wafer). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Because Appellants do not structurally distinguish the recited apparatus from the prior art, no reversible error has been identified in the Examiner's finding that all recited structural components are taught or suggested in the prior art. Appellants next argue that because the combined prior art does not teach all the claim limitations, there is no motivation to combine the references. Br. 20 (stating that "since the combination of Lim and Park does not provide all of the claimed features, the motivation to modify the combination to arrive at the claimed invention can only be found in Appellant's Specification"). Whether the claim limitations are taught or suggested in the prior art, however, is a separate inquiry from whether the obviousness analysis is supported by articulated reasoning with rational underpinning. The Examiner here has shown that the apparatus recited in claim 12 is a "combination of familiar elements according to known methods" and therefore "is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416, 417 (2007) ("[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the 9 Appeal2018-006975 Application 13/793,454 combination of elements of prior art is obvious," the answer depends on "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions."). Appellants' argument that claim 12 may result in increased processed yield does not show the improvement (if any) to be unpredictable or unexpected. Br. 19, 24 (arguing, without evidentiary support such as a comparison to the closest prior art, that the recited apparatus provides unexpected yield results). We are therefore not persuaded that reversible error has been identified in this aspect of the obviousness analysis. Appellants' argument that the preamble of claim 12 is limiting is also unpersuasive because it does not structurally distinguish the prior art. Br. 21. Appellants argue that the Examiner erred by failing to consider the preamble "[a] bevel etcher to etch a bevel edge of a semiconductor wafer having a predetermined outer diameter" which "limits the bevel etcher to a particular semiconductor wafer." Id. The plain language of claim 12, however, does not recite "a particular semiconductor wafer" as Appellants argue, and we decline to import an unrecited feature into the claim. Moreover, the Examiner has determined allowable claim 36 (Final Act. 16) which depends from claim 12 and recites "the bevel etcher of claim 12 and the semiconductor wafer having the predetermined outer diameter." Had claim 12 been limited to a particular semiconductor wafer as Appellants argue, Appellants do not explain whether the scope of independent claim 12 would remain broader than claim 36 as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. See also 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(c) (providing that dependent claims are by definition narrower than the claims from which they depend). For this 10 Appeal2018-006975 Application 13/793,454 additional reason, we decline to import such an unrecited feature into claim 12. Lastly, Appellants argue that the combined prior art fails to teach or suggest "the second PEZ ring surrounding the cylindrical bottom portion of the dielectric component and disposed above and opposing the first PEZ ring" because Park only discloses an upper PEZ ring whereas Lim only discloses a lower PEZ ring. Br. 25. Appellants' argument is not persuasive because it does not address the Examiner's finding that a skilled artisan would have found the recited arrangement obvious for various reasons - for example, the arrangement "would enhance shielding the central portion of the substrate from etching gas and control the plasma distribution" and that "there will be an annular space between the first and second PEZ rings limiting the extent of the bevel edge to be cleaned by plasma." Final Act. 3; see Br. 24--25. Rejection of Claim 34 Claim 34 depends from claim 12 and additionally recites limitations including "an annular-shaped dielectric ring," "a bottom portion of the first PEZ ring comprises a circular inner notch" having "a first height," "the circular outer notch ha[ ving] a second height" and arrangements thereof. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's finding that Koshiishi teaches a dielectric ring having a circular inner notch on both the top and bottom portions. Compare Br. 28, with Final Act. 14. 7 Appellants do not 7 In the Reply Brief, Appellants raise certain arguments related to Koshiishi for the first time on appeal. Reply Br. 19-21. The Examiner has not had an opportunity to consider these arguments, and we decline to consider the belated raised arguments because Appellants do not explain why the arguments could not have been raised previously. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.41(b)(2); 11 Appeal2018-006975 Application 13/793,454 address the Examiner's finding that the limitations recited in claim 34 including the shapes of the components are obvious design choices and that a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to arrange the recited components. Compare Br. 28, with Final Act. 14. We are accordingly unpersuaded that reversible error has been identified here. Rejection of Claims 30 & 31 Appellants do not argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 30 based on the analysis in the Examiner's Answer. Reply Br. 22; cf Ans. 16- 18, 24--25. We accordingly affirm the rejection of claim 30. We affirm the rejection of claim 31 because the Appeal Brief does not separately argue for the patentability of claim 31 and it therefore stands or falls with its parent claims 30/28/12. See Br. 28-29 (arguing solely for the patentability of claim 30 and that claim 31 is "allowable for at least similar reasons as claim 1 [sic, 12]"); see also 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). In the Reply Brief, Appellants raise arguments for claim 31 for the first time on appeal. Reply Br. 21-23. The Examiner has not had an opportunity to consider these arguments, and we decline to consider the belated raised arguments because Appellants do not explain why the arguments could not have been raised previously. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.41(b)(2); see Ex parte Nakashima, 93 USPQ2d 1834 (BPAI 2010) (explaining that arguments and see Ex parte Nakashima, 93 USPQ2d 1834 (BPAI 2010) (explaining that arguments and evidence not timely presented in the principal Brief will not be considered when filed in a Reply Brief, absent a showing of good cause explaining why the argument could not have been presented in the Principal Brief); Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1477 (BPAI 2010) (informative) ("Properly interpreted, the Rules do not require the Board to take up a belated argument that has not been addressed by the Examiner, absent a showing of good cause."). 12 Appeal2018-006975 Application 13/793,454 evidence not timely presented in the principal Brief will not be considered when filed in a Reply Brief, absent a showing of good cause explaining why the argument could not have been presented in the Principal Brief); Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1477 (BPAI 2010) (informative) ("Properly interpreted, the Rules do not require the Board to take up a belated argument that has not been addressed by the Examiner, absent a showing of good cause."). DECISION The Examiner's decision 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 13 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation