Ex Parte Hammond et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 22, 201612395465 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/395,465 0212712009 Edward P. Hammond IV 44257 7590 07/26/2016 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. 013230/ETCH/CHMBR/MDD 4387 EXAMINER NUCKOLS, TIFFANY Z ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1716 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/26/2016 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 EDWARD P. HAMMOND, IV, JING ZOU, RODOLFO P. BELEN, MEIHUA SHEN, NICOLAS GANI, ANDREW NGUYEN, DAVID P ALAGASHVILI, andMICHAELD. WILLWERTH Appeal2015-001154 Application 12/395,465 Technology Center 1700 Before TERRY J. OWENS, GEORGE C. BEST, and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges. McMANUS; Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims directed to a processing chamber for etching silicon wafers. The Examiner has rejected the claims as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6. We affirm-in-part and reverse-in-part. Appeal2015-001154 Application 12/395,465 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Rejections The Examiner finally rejected the claims of Application 12/395,465 as follows: Claims 1, 3-9, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 i-f 2 as indefinite. Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 13, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Denpoh 1 or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Denpoh. Claims 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Denpoh in view of Ke. 2 Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Denpoh in view of Hirano. 3 Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Denpoh in view of Ke and in further view of Johnson. 4 Claims 1, 3---6, 8, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ke in view of Denpoh. Appellants5 seek reversal of the rejections predicated on 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. 1 US 2001/0015262 Al, published Aug. 23, 2001. 2 U.S. Patent No. 6,284,093 Bl, issued Sept. 4, 2001. 3 U.S. Patent No. 5,411,624, issued May 2, 1995. 4 US 2003/0201069 Al, published Oct. 30, 2003. 5 Applied Materials, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Appeal2015-001154 Application 12/395,465 After-Final Prosecution The Applicants submitted a Response to the Final Rejection seeking to amend several claims. Resp. to Final Act. (Sept. 17, 2013). The Applicants submitted amended claims 1 and 8 which substitute the term "internal wall" for "inner wall" and that include a limitation that the focus ring is "in contact with" the cathode. Id. at 2, 4. The remarks submitted therewith indicate that the first amendment ("internal wall") is intended to resolve the indefiniteness rejections and the second amendment is intended to overcome the prior art rejections. Id. at 7-13. In a responsive Advisory Action, the Examiner indicated that the proposed amendments would not be entered because they raise new issues that would require further consideration or search. Adv. Act. (Oct. 28, 2013) i-f 3. The Examiner further initialed the Response to the Final Rejection and indicated "DO NOT ENTER" on the first page. The Applicants submitted a second Response to the Final Rejection seeking to make similar amendments to claims l and 8 as well as claim 22. Resp. to Final Act. (Nov. 15, 2013). In a second Advisory Action, the Examiner again indicated that the proposed amendments would not be entered because they raise new issues that would require further consideration or search. Adv. Act. (Dec. 13, 2013) i-f 3. As before, the Examiner initialed the second Response to the Final Rejection and marked it "DO NOT ENTER." BACKGROUND The present application relates broadly to the field of semiconductor fabrication. In the course of fabrication, a semiconductor wafer is subject to an etching process in a plasma chamber. Spec. 2. During etching, the 3 Appeal2015-001154 Application 12/395,465 semiconductor is typically surrounded by a focus ring to optimize the electrical and chemical processes. Id. at 3. A focus ring is an annular ring made of a material similar to the semiconductor wafer. Id. at 3. The focus ring mitigates variation in the electric field and gas composition above the edge of the wafer that results in uniform etching across its surface so as to maximize the area that will yield semiconductor chips. Id. at 3, 11. Claims 1 and 7 are representative of the claims at issue and are reproduced below: 1. A processing chamber for etching a substrate, compnsmg: a chamber body having a substrate support assembly comprising a substrate support disposed on a cathode; an electrode disposed in the cathode and having a diameter greater than the substrate support; a focus ring disposed on an upper surface of the substrate support assembly, the focus ring comprising a material selected from the group consisting of monocrystalline silicon, silicon carbide, silicon nitride, silicon oxycarbide, and combinations thereof, wherein the focus ring has an internal wall at an inner diameter, a first surface extending from the inner wall, a step rising from the first surface, and a second surface extending from the step, wherein the second surface has horizontal dimension less than about 0.15 inches; and a quartz ring disposed on the upper surface of the cathode and circumscribing the focus ring. 7. The chamber of claim 1, wherein the focus ring has an annular shape and comprises: a substantially vertical inner wall at an inner radius; a first surface extending from the inner wall in an orientation substantially perpendicular thereto; a first step extending from the first surface and substantially perpendicular thereto; 4 Appeal2015-001154 Application 12/395,465 a second surface extending from the first step in an orientation substantially perpendicular thereto; a bevel extending from the second surface and forming an angle less than about 80° with the second surface; and an upper surface extending from the bevel in an orientation substantially parallel to the second surface, wherein the second surface extends from the first step to the bevel a distance between about 0.08 inches and about 0.14 inches. Amend. March 28, 2013. 6 DISCUSSION As a preliminary matter, the Board notes that there are certain rejections that are omitted from the present appeal. The Appellants appeal neither the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-9, and 21 as indefinite, Final Act. 4, nor the rejection of claim 8 as obvious over Denpoh in view of Hirano, Final Act. 11; Answer 8. We, therefore, will not address these rejections. There is no record of the rejection predicated on indefiniteness being withdrawn. Appellants, however, have not identified it as an issue to be considered on appeal. See App. Br. 8. Nor is there is any heading or argument in the brief contesting this rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (" ... 6 Claim 1 as set forth above differs from claim 1 as set forth in the Claims Appendix submitted with the Appeal Brief. The claim above was submitted March 28, 2013, and uses the term "inner wall" while the claims set forth in the Claims Appendix include the term "internal wall." The Appellants sought to amend this and other claim terms, however, the appellate record does not indicate entry of such amendments. See Advisory Action (mailed Oct. 28, 2013) and Advisory Action (mailed Dec. 13, 2013). Moreover, the Claims Appendix shows claim 8 as being canceled, however the appellate record does not indicate such cancellation being entered by the Examiner. 5 Appeal2015-001154 Application 12/395,465 any arguments or authorities not included in the appeal brief will be refused consideration by the Board .... "). Appellants, therefore, are presumed not to have contested it. Similarly, claim 8 stands rejected as obvious over Denpoh in view of Hirano et al. As above, in view of the omission of any argument in the brief contesting this rejection, Appellants are presumed to acquiesce. Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 13, 21, and 22 Based on Anticipation by Denpoh The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 13, 21, and 22 as anticipated by Denpoh. The Appellants challenge such rejection on the basis that Denpoh does not teach "a quartz ring disposed on the upper surface of the cathode and circumscribing the focus ring," Appeal Br. 9. The Appellants argue that the quartz ring of Denpoh, designated 3 3 in the figure below, is not "disposed on" the cathode 30 because there is an intervening layer of silicone rubber 34 intended to enhance heat transfer between the quartz ring member and the cathode. Denpoh i-f 64. Figure 2 of Denpoh is reproduced below: FIG. 2 Figure 2 is a vertical section of an upper portion of the cathode and the annular compensation ring. 6 Appeal2015-001154 Application 12/395,465 The Examiner construes the "disposed on" limitation as not requiring direct contact between the quartz ring and the cathode and, therefore, determines that Denpoh teaches a quartz ring disposed on the upper surface of the cathode. Answer 16. The Examiner further found that Denpoh teaches that an annular compensation ring on a cathode was known in the art prior to Denpoh' s filing date. In the "Background of the Invention" section, the Denpoh Specification describes Figure 14 as depicting "the inside of the treatment chamber of typical apparatus for plasma treatment." Denpoh i-f 5. Figure 14 of Denpoh depicts a "compensation ring" 103 disposed on a cathode. The Examiner concludes that "having a bare ring with intimate contact with a cathode is well known in the prior art and inherently anticipatory." Answer 16. On these two bases, the Examiner determines that claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 13, 21, and 22 are anticipated by Denpoh. We first consider whether the claim limitation "disposed on" requires direct contact between the quartz ring and the cathode. During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation while reading claim language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). It is clear from the Specification of the present application that the inventors contemplated embodiments with the quartz ring in contact with the cathode as well as with the quartz ring above the cathode but not in direct contact with it. Specifically, the Specification provides as follows: The first and second rings 302 and 304 are generally disposed above an upper surface of the substrate support assembly 322. In some embodiments, the first and second rings 302 and 304 are disposed above an upper surface of the cathode 7 Appeal2015-001154 Application 12/395,465 308. In one aspect, the first ring 302 may contact the upper surface of the cathode 308. In another aspect, the second ring 304 may contact the upper surface of the cathode 308. In another aspect, both rings may contact the upper surface of the cathode 308. Specification i-f 26. Claim 1 requires a quartz ring "disposed on" the cathode while independent claim 10 requires a quartz ring "disposed above" the cathode. The applicants' use of different claim terms gives rise to an inference that the terms differ in scope. "[T]he general assumption is that different terms have different meanings." Symantec Corp. v. Comput. Assoc. Int 'l, Inc., 522 F.3d 1279, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Similarly, to determine the scope of "disposed above," we look to the language of claims depending from claim 10. Claim 12, which depends from claim 10, requires a quartz ring that "contacts the upper surface of the cathode." The doctrine of claim differentiation suggests that the term "disposed above," as used in claim 10, does not require that the quartz ring contact the cathode, otherwise the additional language of claim 12 would be redundant. See Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., 632 F.3d 1246, 1254--55 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, "disposed above" is construed to mean located above but not necessarily in contact with the substrate structure while "disposed on" is construed to mean above and in direct contact with the substrate. As a result, Denpoh does not teach a quartz ring "disposed on" the cathode and claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 13, 21, and 22 are not anticipated by the embodiment of Denpoh depicted in Figure 2. Nor does the Background of the Investigation section of Denpoh teach an etching chamber with a focus ring as described and a quartz ring disposed 8 Appeal2015-001154 Application 12/395,465 on a cathode. Denpoh teaches that it was known in the prior art to use an annular compensation ring on a susceptor (cathode). Denpoh, however, does not teach what the annular compensation ring was made of nor its precise shape. Accordingly, Denpoh does not anticipate the application at issue. Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 13, 21, and 22 as Obvious in View of Denpoh The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 13, 21, and22 as obvious in view of Denpoh. Final Act. 5-9. "[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case ofunpatentability." In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). As an initial matter, we note that the Examiner has not carried this burden with respect to certain claims. Claim 9 depends from claim 7 while claim 13 depends from claim 10. Neither the limitations underlying claim 7 nor claim 10 were made the subject of a rejection based solely on Denpoh. Final Act. 9. Accordingly, there is no prima facie case of obviousness of claim 9 or claim 13 on this basis. A claim will be rejected where "the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art." 35 U.S.C. § 103 (amended 2011). The ultimate determination of obviousness under § 103 is a question of law based on underlying factual findings. In re Baxter Int 'l, Inc., 678 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012). These underlying factual considerations consist of: (1) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, (2) the scope and content of the prior art, (3) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, 9 Appeal2015-001154 Application 12/395,465 and (4) secondary considerations of non-obviousness such as commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966)). As above, the Appellants argue that the claims are not obvious because Denpoh does not teach a quartz ring "disposed on" the cathode. Appeal Br. 11-13. Appellants assert that omission of the silicone rubber of Denpoh wound render the etching chamber of Denpoh unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Id. at 11. As the Examiner notes, Denpoh' s "Background of the Investigation" describes a focus ring in direct contact with a cathode. See also, Denpoh Fig. 14. Moreover, the claims of Denpoh suggest alternative embodiments. Specifically, claim 5 is directed to an "apparatus for plasma treatment as set forth in claim 1, further comprising: cooling means for cooling the second ring member." While claim 6 of Denpoh goes to an "apparatus for plasma treatment as set forth in claim 5: wherein the cooling means is a layer of thermal conductor interposed between the second ring member and the susceptor." Thus, the Denpoh reference, read as a whole, indicates that having a layer of thermal conductor (silicone rubber) interposed between the quartz ring and the cathode is only one possible embodiment. Accordingly, there is little difference between the prior art and the claims at issue and it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make a processing chamber having a quartz ring in direct contact with the cathode. The rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, 21, and 22 is affirmed on this basis. 10 Appeal2015-001154 Application 12/395,465 Rejection of Claims 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, and 23 as Obvious over Denpoh in View of Ke and Rejection of Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 21, and 22 as Obvious over Ke in View of Denpoh The Examiner rejected claims 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, and 23 over Denpoh in view of Ke. Final Act. 10. Similarly, the Examiner rejected claims 1, 3- 6, 8, 21, and 22 as obvious over Ke in view ofDenpoh. Final Act. 14. Each of claims 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, and 23 (hereafter, the "bevel claims") includes limitations requiring a focus ring having a bevel extending from the second surface. The Examiner specifically relies upon Figures 5 and 6 of Ke to support the rejection of the bevel claims. Figure 6 is reproduced below: FIG. 6 Figure 6 depicts a sectional view of a focus ring assembly. The Ke Specification describes the non-dielectric protective ring 50 of Figure 6 as made up of a lower ring 56 and an upper ring 58. Ke col. 8:32- 35; col. 11 :37--43. The Examiner relies upon the combination of the upper ring 58 of Ke with the inner ring 32 of Denpoh. Final Act. 10-11. Ke states that the angled collar (bevel) is for the following purpose: Therefore, in our invention the scattered ions will be distributed over a broader area above the wafer, rather than being concentrated at the edge of the wafer as with conventional dielectric collars. 11 Appeal2015-001154 Application 12/395,465 Ke col. 18:29--32. The Examiner found this to provide a motivation to combine the bevel of Ke with the remaining structure of Denpoh. Final Act. 10-11. This appears to be the same, or similar, to the reasoning of the present inventors as set forth in the Specification: The second ring 304 improves etch uniformity by creating a vapor phase above the edge of the substrate that is similar in composition to that above other portions of the substrate. Spec. i-f 28. Accordingly, we adopt the Examiner's findings regarding motivation to combine the teachings of Ke and Denpoh and find the bevel claims to be obvious. Similarly, we adopt the analysis above regarding obviousness in view of Denpoh and further note that Ke teaches a quartz ring in direct contact with, and "disposed on," the cathode, further bolstering the finding, supra, that a quartz ring disposed on a cathode was known in the art. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12, 14, 21, 22, and 23 as obvious is affirmed. Rejection of Claim 11 over Denpoh in View of Ke and Further in View of Johnson Although Appellants' brief provides a separate heading for claim 11, which was rejected as obvious over Denpoh in view of Ke and further in view of Johnson, it does not present any unique argument in support of the claim's patentability. Rather, Appellants argue that claim 11 is patentable for at least the same reasons as claim 10, from which it depends. Appeal Br. 16-17. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 11 is affirmed for the reasons specified above. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (requiring that Appellants' "arguments shall explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of rejection contested by appellant."). 12 Appeal2015-001154 Application 12/395,465 DECISION Because Appellants have not contested the rejection of claims 1, 3-9, and 21 as indefinite, we summarily affirm that rejection. We reverse the rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 13, 21and22 on the basis of anticipation. We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 21-23 and reverse the rejection of claims 9 and 13 on the basis of obviousness. 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). AFFIRMED-IN-PART AND REVERSED-IN-PART APJ initials: 13 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation