Ex Parte George et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 10, 2012

11564134 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 10, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/564,134 11/28/2006 Rene George MAT-8C 2073
21833 7590 10/10/2012
PRITZKAU PATENT GROUP, LLC
993 GAPTER ROAD
BOULDER, CO 80303
EXAMINER
DHINGRA, RAKESH KUMAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/10/2012 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 RENE GEORGE, ANDREAS KADAVANICH,
DANIEL J. DEVINE, STEPHEN E. SAVAS, JOHN ZAJAC,
and HONGCHING SHAN
____________________

Appeal 2011-005808
Application 11/564,134
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, HUBERT C. LORIN, and
CATHERINE Q. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.

TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 7-10 and 12-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal 2011-005808
Application 11/564,134

2
Appellants’ claims relate to an electrostatic shield used in an
inductively coupled plasma reactor (see independent claims 7, 10, 13, and 16
as reproduced in the Appendix to the Brief).
According to Appellants’ Specification, electrostatic shields were
known in the art and used to reduce undesirable electrostatic fields and
capacitive coupling (Spec. ¶ 5; see also US 5,534,231 to Savas incorporated
by reference at Spec. ¶ 5). According to the Specification, “[a]n electrostatic
shield of any type may be used with an inductively coupled plasma source,
but for RF power to penetrate the shield, a slotted electrostatic shield has
been found to be an effective approach” (Spec. ¶ 5). Appellants’ shield is a
slotted electrostatic shield that is said to be an improvement over prior art
electrostatic shields (Spec. ¶¶ 5-13).
The prior art slotted shields discussed by Appellants are of two
varieties (id.).
One type of prior art shield has a shape that varies in radii relative to
the axis of symmetry (Spec. ¶ 5, incorporating by reference U.S. Patent
5,534,231 to Savas, which shows a cylindrical dome-topped slotted shield,
and Spec. ¶7, discussing a frustoconical slotted shield). Appellants’ Figure
1, which shows the prior art frustoconical shield at 101 between a plasma
containing vessel 104 and a plasma generation coil 102, is reproduced
below:
App
App

slots
type
dime
Paten
emb
eal 2011-0
lication 11
Diagram

The prio
103 of co
of prior ar
nsions but
t 5,234,52
odiment of
05808
/564,134
matic per
r art frusto
nstant wid
t slotted sh
an axially
9 to John
Johnson’
spective il
assembl
conical sh
th around
ield discu
uniform c
son (Spec.
s two-part
3
lustration
y (Spec. ¶
ield of Fig
its circumf
ssed by A
ylindrical
¶ 12). Fig
shield, is r
of prior ar
17)
ure 1 has
erence (Sp
ppellants h
shield sha
ure 5 of J
eproduced

t frustocon
regularly s
ec. ¶ 7).
as varying
pe as show
ohnson, sh
below:
ical shield
paced
The other
slot
n by U.S
owing an

.
App
App

(John
relat
form
widt
the s
axial
28).
eal 2011-0
lication 11
Perspe

Johnson
son, col.
ive to the o
ed by the
h of the sli
hield, and
location o
05808
/564,134
ctive view
’s shield in
5, ll. 61-65
uter porti
two shield
t varies th
changing
f the capa
of an em
(Johnson
cludes tw
). Johnso
on 44 to ch
portions (
e amount o
the axial p
citive coup
4
bodiment o
, col. 2, ll
o concentr
n disclose
ange the w
Johnson, c
f capaciti
osition and
ling (John
f Johnson
. 7-8)
ic shield p
s rotating t
idth and
ol. 6, ll. 1
ve couplin
length of
son, col. 6

’s two-pie
ortions 42
he inner p
length of t
9-24). Ch
g provided
the slit va
, ll. 1-6 an
ce shield
and 44
ortion 42
he slit
anging the
through
ries the
d ll. 19-

Appeal 2011-005808
Application 11/564,134

5
Appellants’ electrostatic shield combines a radially varied shape, such
as the frustoconical shape of Figure 1, with a variable slot arrangement, such
as the slot arrangement shown in Johnsons’ Figure 5 (Spec. ¶ 15).
According to Appellants, the combination produces a plasma density having
a given radial variation characteristic across the surface being treated that is
different from the plasma density radial characteristic created by the prior art
shields (id.). This radially varying plasma density, according to Appellants,
is not taught by the prior art (Spec. ¶ 12).
Appellants’ Figure 10a is reproduced below to illustrate an
embodiment of their electrostatic shield:

Diagrammatic perspective view of a two-part electrostatic shield
assembly 600 (Spec. ¶¶ 30)

Appeal 2011-005808
Application 11/564,134

6
Appellants explain that
Again considering the aforedescribed invention by
Johnson, only a cylindrical shield is taught. The highly
advantageous two-part slotted shield of the present invention,
for varying plasma radial uniformity, is not a cylindrical shield.
The present invention recognizes that a shield with a shape that
covers a range of radii relative to the symmetry axis of the
system (i.e., part of a cone surface, flat-top, or dome surface) is
highly advantageous. With this type of shield, the slot
variability is capable of producing a change in the radial
distribution of power injection into the plasma. This change in
the power injection distribution results in a change in the radial
density distribution of the plasma.
(Spec. ¶ 73.)
The Examiner rejects claims 7, 9, and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Qian1 in view of Johnson2 (Ans. 4-7 and 9-13).3 To reject
claims 8, 10, and 12, the Examiner adds Daviet4 as evidence of obviousness.
Appellants argue various claims under separate headings. We,
therefore, consider those claims separately pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii). Claims not argued under separate headings stand or fall
with the argued claim upon which they depend.

1 Qian, US 5,540,800 patented Jul. 30, 1996.
2 Johnson, US 5,234,529 patented Aug. 10, 1993.
3 Initially, the Examiner rejected claims 7, 9, 10, 16, and 20 over Appellants’
Admitted Prior Art (Figure 1) in view of Johnson and Qian (Non-Final Rej.
3). However, the Examiner no longer relies upon Appellants’ Figure 1 in
any of the rejections (Final Rej. 3; Ans. 4-13).
4 Daviet, US 6,056,848 patented May 2, 2000.
Appeal 2011-005808
Application 11/564,134

7
OPINION
A. The Rejection of Claims 7, 9, and 13-20 over Qian and Johnson
1. Claim 7
Claim 7 reads as follows:
7. In a processing chamber that uses an inductively
coupled plasma source defining an axis of symmetry and which
produces a plasma density having a given radial variation
characteristic across a treatment surface of a treatment object
therein using a given electrostatic shield, an apparatus
comprising:
an electrostatic shield arrangement including at least a
sidewall arrangement having a shape that extends through a
range of radii relative to said axis of symmetry to replace said
given electrostatic shield to provide for producing a modified
radial variation characteristic across said treatment surface
which is different than said given radial variation characteristic
and where said electrostatic shield arrangement includes at least
a first, inner shield member and a second, outer shield member,
said inner shield member defining a first aperture pattern and
said outer shield member defining a second aperture pattern,
and the outer shield member nests proximate to the inner shield
member with the inner and outer shield members being
supported for rotation relative to one another such that the first
aperture pattern cooperates with the second aperture pattern in a
way which provides a range in said modified radial variation
characteristic across said treatment surface by defining an
effective aperture pattern that is made up of a plurality of
effective apertures in which each effective aperture extends
through at least a portion of the range of radii relative to the
axis of symmetry and each effective aperture includes a width
that varies at least partially along the length of that effective
aperture to produce the modified radial variation characteristic.
(Claims App. at Br. 30.)
Appeal 2011-005808
Application 11/564,134

8
As a first matter, we note that the claim is directed to an apparatus.
“Claims drawn to an apparatus must distinguish from the prior art in terms
of structure rather than function.” In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848 (CCPA
1959).
In terms of positively recited structure, the claim requires an
electrostatic shield having
(1) a sidewall arrangement having a shape that extends through a
range of radii relative to said axis of symmetry, such as a dome-
shape or frustoconical shape; and
(2) nested inner and outer shield members;
a. each with an aperture pattern,
b. supported for rotation relative to one another such that the
first aperture pattern cooperates with the second aperture
pattern to define an effective aperture pattern,
c. each effective aperture extending through at least a portion
of the range of radii relative to the axis of symmetry,
d. each effective aperture including a width that varies at least
partially along the length of that effective aperture.
The language directed to producing a plasma density having a
modified radial variation characteristic across said treatment surface is
functional in nature. We consider this language in so far as it defines
structures patentably distinguishable from structures described and
suggested by the prior art.
There is no dispute that Qian describes, as found by the Examiner, a
two member electrostatic shield having a dome-shape, i.e., a shape that
Appeal 2011-005808
Application 11/564,134

9
extends through a range of radii relative to the axis of symmetry as required
by claim 7 (Compare Br. 11-12 with Ans. 4). Nor is there any dispute that
Johnson describes an electrostatic shield with two members (inner and outer
portions 42, 44) that can be rotated relative to each other so that the aperture
patterns therein can cooperate to control capacitive coupling (Compare Br.
9-11 with Ans. 5). While Appellants make a myriad of arguments, many of
which focus on the individual teachings in each of the references, the central
issue in this appeal can be formulated as: Has the Examiner erred in finding
that Johnson provides a reason for including the rotatable shield members
having the cooperating pattern of apertures of Johnson in the dome-shaped
electrostatic shield of Qian such that the modified structure meets all the
structural requirements of claim 7?
We determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness and, therefore, answer this question
in the negative. In addition to the facts discussed above, the relevant facts
are as follows.
The prior art as a whole provides evidence that electrostatic shields of
various shapes, including dome-shaped shields, and with or without slots,
slits, and apertures were known in the art (Qian, Figs. 1-2 and col. 4, ll. 33-
41; see also Spec. ¶ 5).
Qian’s Figure 2 is reproduced below:
Appeal 2011-005808
Application 11/564,134

10

Expanded perspective side view showing Qian’s Faraday shield
(Qian, col. 2, ll. 63-65)

In explaining the background of Qian’s invention, Qian states that:
In order to reduce such capacitive coupling, a
Faraday shield [i.e., an electrostatic shield] can be placed
between the coil antenna and the plasma. The Faraday
shield is a grounded thin conductive layer. The Faraday
shield, however, must have thin elongate openings
therein lying in directions perpendicular to the windings
of the RF coil antenna, in order to suppress any eddy
Appeal 2011-005808
Application 11/564,134

11
currents which would otherwise tend to be induced in the
Faraday shield. These openings, however, tend to admit
some electric fields from the coil antenna to the plasma,
thereby permitting some capacitive coupling.
(Qian, col. 1, ll. 49-59.)
Qian describes a two-layer Faraday shield 80 (electrostatic shield)
having first and second layers 82 and 86 conforming to the dome ceiling of
the plasma reactor 25 (Qian, col. 3, ll. 52-62). Qian offsets the slots 84 and
88 in the shield layers so that there is no aperture through which an electric
field can pass (Qian, col. 3, l. 66 to col. 4, l. 6). Accordingly, the shield 80
“provides far greater suppression of capacitive coupling” (Qian, col. 4, ll. 6-
9).
Johnson, as discussed above, also describes an electrostatic shield for
suppressing capacitive coupling, but Johnson’s inner and outer shield
portions are rotatable so that slots in the inner and outer shield portions
define effective apertures that vary in width and length so the degree of
capacitive coupling allowed through the shield can be varied for tuning the
characteristics of the plasma (Johnson, col. 2, ll. 24-33). Johnson discloses
that such tuning is desirable when more RF power is required than is
available in a totally inductively coupled plasma (Johnson, col. 4, ll. 23-39).
“The ‘existence of a reason for a person of ordinary skill to combine
references” is a question of fact’.” In re Suong-Hyu Hyon, 679 F.3d 1363,
1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Constr. Equip. Co., 665 F.3d 1254,
1255 (Fed.Cir.2011)). We review this question under a preponderance of the
evidence standard of proof. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Appeal 2011-005808
Application 11/564,134

12
The prior art provides evidence that those of ordinary skill in the art
understood how to obtain the level of capacitive coupling desired in an
electrostatic shield. When reduced capacitive coupling is desired, one would
have blocked the apertures as taught by Qian. However, when one desired
to tune the characteristics of the plasma, one would have constructed the
shield members with the variable aperture patterns taught by Johnson and
made the members rotatable to accomplish the tuning as described by
Johnson.
A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding of a
reason to combine the teachings of Qian and Johnson as proposed.
We agree with Appellants that Johnson only discloses using the ratio
of open area to closed area of the effective apertures to change the amount of
coupling to the plasma, and does not teach a plasma density having “a
modified radial variation characteristic across said treatment surface” as
recited by claim 7 (Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 4-5). However, “any need or
problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and
addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in
the manner claimed.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420
(2007). Therefore, this difference in purpose does not indicate an error in
the Examiner’s finding of a reason to combine.
Moreover, Appellants appear to have merely discovered a new
benefit, i.e., modified radial variation in plasma density, for a shield having a
range of radii relative to the axis of symmetry and variable apertures. This
new plasma density benefit need not have been recognized in the prior art to
have rendered the claim obvious. Boston Scientific v. Cordis, 554 F.3d 982,
Appeal 2011-005808
Application 11/564,134

13
991 (Fed. Cir. 2009). We emphasize that the claim is directed to an
apparatus and, therefore, must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of
structure rather than function. There is no evidence that the function of
producing a modified radial variation characteristic requires a structure
different from that suggested by the prior art combination.
We sustain the rejection of claim 7 and claim 20, which stands or falls
therewith, as obvious over Qian in view of Johnson.
2. Claims 9, 13-15, and 17-19
Claims 9, 13-15, and 17-19 specifically require the shield members be
frustoconical (see claims 9, 13, and 17). The Examiner finds that the dome-
shaped shield members of Qian are frustoconical in configuration (see, e.g.,
Ans. 6). However, a dome has a hemispherical shape, not the truncated
conical shape of a frustoconical structure such as that shown in Appellants’
Figure 1.5
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not established that
Qian in view of Johnson teaches or suggests a frustoconical shield member.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 9, 13-15, and 17-19 over
Qian in view of Johnson.
3. Claim 16
With respect to claim 16, Appellants rely upon the same arguments
advanced against the rejection of claim 7 (Br. 21-22). For the reasons we
explained above in reference to the rejection of claim 7, we sustain the
rejection of claim 16.

5 The prior rejection that relied upon Figure 1 as well as Qian and Johnson as
evidence of obvious is not before us. Therefore, we do not review that
rejection.
Appeal 2011-005808
Application 11/564,134

14
B. The Rejection of Claims 8, 10, and 12 over Qian, Johnson, and
Daviet
1. Claim 8
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 7 and further requires “a rotation
arrangement for sensing the modified radial variation characteristic and for
rotating one of the inner shield member and the outer shield member
responsive to a sensed value of the modified radial variation characteristic.”
The Examiner acknowledges that Qian in view of Johnson does not
teach that the rotation arrangement is for the functions recited in claim 8
(Ans. 7). However, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to automate the shield member moving
arrangement of Qian and Johnson to control capacitive coupling (Ans. 7 and
42).
Appellants contend that the prior art would not lead one to conclude
that a modified radial variation characteristic would even be produced much
less suggest sensing that characteristic and rotating in response to the
sensing (Br. 25-26).
The first question to be asked is: What structure is encompassed by
Appellants’ claim limitation?
To answer that question, we consult the Specification to give the
words of the claim context. See U.S. v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 49 (1966) ("[I]t
is fundamental that claims are to be construed in the light of the
specifications and both are to be read with a view to ascertaining the
invention.").
Appeal 2011-005808
Application 11/564,134

15
The claim 8 limitation is in the form of a function without a recitation
of structure. Looking to the Specification for guidance as to what structure
is intended to correspond with the function, we find that the only mention of
sensing and controlling the rotating in response to the sensing is found in the
Specification at paragraph 50, which states:
In an automatic plasma tuning implementation, real-time
inputs can be employed using sensors measuring parameters at
a wafer surface such as, for example, etch and/or deposition
rates at specific positions on the surface of the wafer. For
instance, deposition and etch rates can be measured for certain
materials using optical reflectometry. Moreover, any suitable
optical emission techniques can be used to measure etch and/or
deposition rates at localized, spaced apart positions for use in
determining uniformity. A wide variety of motor and control
arrangements may be used in such automatic implementations.
(Spec. ¶ 50.)
Paragraph 51 describes automated control schemes. The control
schemes involve rotating the shield members relative to one another to vary
the radial RF penetration by varying the shape or size of the slots (Spec. ¶
51). Moreover, the modified radial variation characteristic is not directly
sensed, rather measurements indicative of uniformity are preformed, e.g.,
measurements of etch rate or deposition rate (Spec. ¶ 51). Neither the type
of sensor nor its structure is identified in the Specification.
Johnson suggests using a “process monitoring and controlling
mechanism” to move a lever that rotates the inner shield relative to the outer
shield to displace the slits and vary capacitive coupling (Johnson, col. 6, ll.
7-16). Daviet discusses using elevational or rotational actuators for lifting or
Appeal 2011-005808
Application 11/564,134

16
moving shield portions to provide gaps that allow capacitive coupling
(Daviet, col. 6, ll. 2-9).
The prior art indicates that automating and controlling the rotation by
known monitoring and process control means was known in the art. Given
the dome-shaped structure with variable apertures suggested by the prior art
has a structure that appears capable of accomplishing a modified radial
variation of plasma density, there is no evidence on this record that the
automation structures one of ordinary skill in the art would have used to
control etching, deposition, and capacitive coupling in the structure
suggested by the combination of Qian and Johnson are patentability
distinguishable from the “rotation arrangement” of claim 8.
A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 8. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 8.
2. Claims 10 and 12
Claims 10 and 12 require that the first shield member be frustoconical
in configuration (see Claim 10). The Examiner relies upon the response to
claim 9, i.e., that Qian’s dome-shaped shield could be considered generally
frustoconical (Ans. 43; see also Ans. 30). As we stated above with regard to
the rejection of claim 9, a dome is not frustoconical.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 12.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the rejection of claims 7, 16, and 20 as obvious over Qian
and Johnson.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 9, 13-15, and 17-19 over
Qian in view of Johnson.
Appeal 2011-005808
Application 11/564,134

17
We sustain the rejection of claim 8 over Qian, Johnson, and Daviet.
We do not sustain the rejection of 10 and 12 over Qian, Johnson, and
Daviet.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

cam