Ex Parte HUANG et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 19, 2019

14889322 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/889,322 11/05/2015 XiHUANG
44257 7590 02/21/2019
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.
22386USP 8753
EXAMINER
DUMBRIS, SETH M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1784
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/21/2019 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):
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 XI HUANG and WENLONG XU
Appeal2018-005660
Application 14/889,322
Technology Center 1700
Before RAEL YNN P. GUEST, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 10-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 We refer to the Specification ("Spec.") filed November 5, 2015; Final
Office Action ("Final Act.") dated June 2, 2017; Appellant's Appeal Brief
("App. Br.") filed January 8, 2018; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") dated
March 9, 2018; and Appellant's Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") dated May 9,
2018.
2 Appellant is Applicant, Applied Materials, Inc., which the Appeal Brief
identifies as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-005660
Application 14/889,322
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a textured surface within a
process chamber, such as a deposition chamber used in semiconductor
fabrication. Spec. ,r,r 1, 3. According to the Inventors, a textured chamber
surface reduces the tendency of accumulated matter to detach from the
surface and contaminate the substrate being processed. Id. ,r,r 3, 24. Claim
10 is illustrative:
10. A chamber component for a processmg chamber, the
component comprising:
a textured surface comprising a plurality of textured
features formed by an electrochemical etching process, each of
the textured features comprising:
a raised feature surrounding a depression, the raised
feature being circumscribed by a plurality of grooves, and
at least a portion of the grooves intersect.
App. Br. 11 (Claims Appendix).
Claims 1 7 and 21 similarly recite a chamber component having a
textured surface. Each of the remaining claims on appeal depends from
claim 10, 17, or 21.
REJECTIONS 3
I. Claims 10, 12-15, 17, 19-21, 23, and 24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Begovic. 4
II. Claims 10-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Popiolkowski 5 and Begovic.
3 A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is withdrawn. Advisory Action, dated
July 12, 2017.
4 US 2009/0206521 Al, published August 20, 2009 ("Begovic").
5 US 6,933,508 B2, issued August 23, 2005 ("Popiolkowski").
2
Appeal2018-005660
Application 14/889,322
OPINION
For each of Rejections I and II, Appellant argues the claims as a
group. See App. Br. 7-9. We select claim 10 as representative of the group.
All other rejected claims stand or fall with claim 10.
Rejection I
With regard to Rejection I, the Examiner finds Begovic discloses a
textured process chamber surface, in which the texture geometry includes
depressions and/or protuberances. Final Act. 3--4. Begovic teaches the
textured surface being used for adhering contaminants in a process chamber,
such as a deposition chamber used in semiconductor fabrication. Begovic
,r,r 6, 49. The Examiner finds that Begovic discloses an exemplary matrix
pattern of impressions in Figure 1 lA, and exemplary cross-sections of
individual impressions in Figure 17. Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner
determines that selecting certain impression cross-sections from Begovic' s
Figure 17 for use in the matrix pattern of Begovic's Figure 1 lA would have
met the claimed texture. Id. at 4. For example, the Examiner finds that
providing an impression having the cross-section shown at the bottom of
Begovic' s Figure 17 with Begovic' s matrix pattern would have resulted in a
plurality of features, each of which comprises a raised feature, surrounding a
depression, circumscribed by grooves that intersect, as recited in claim 10.
Ans. 12-13.
Appellant argues that the relied upon disclosures in Begovic are not
enabling because the cross-sections in Figure 17 are not shown with cross-
hatching, and because the Figure does not show the cutting plane
corresponding to the depicted cross-sections. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2.
These arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. Begovic' s Figure 1 7
3
Appeal2018-005660
Application 14/889,322
includes cross-sections taken in the plan view and perpendicular to the plan
view. Begovic ,r 104. Begovic's Figure 1 lA shows a matrix of impressions
in the plan view. Id. ,r 90. These Figures are reproduced at page four of the
Final Office Action. Begovic teaches that the impressions are impressed
onto the surface of a liner, such as by mechanically impressing the liner
material. Id. ,r 54. Appellant does not present persuasive evidence or
technical reasoning to support a contention that these disclosures in Begovic
would not have been enabling to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce
the disclosed texture patterns.
Appellant also argues that Begovic does not show grooves. App. Br.
7-8; Reply Br. 2. The Examiner provides a copy of Begovic's Figure 1 lA
along with an annotated excerpt from Begovic' s Figure 1 7, which we
reproduce below.
.--------.
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
FIG. l IA
/1100
1110
raised feature
groove ~pressionJ
tlr-
Ans. 13. The Examiner identifies a central depression, surrounded by a
raised feature (protuberance), which in tum is surrounded by a groove
corresponding to the original surface of the material. Id. To the extent that
Appellant intends that the surface surrounding the raised portion of
Begovic' s depicted impression should not be considered a groove, we agree
with the Examiner's determination (Ans. 14) that the Specification also
characterizes the surface surrounding a protuberance as a groove. See, e.g.,
4
Appeal2018-005660
Application 14/889,322
Spec. ,r 37, Figs. 6A, 6B. Appellant does not urge a narrow construction for
the word, "groove," or otherwise explain why that term should be construed
to exclude the embodiment depicted at Figures 6A and 6B of the
Specification. On this appeal record, Appellant does not persuade us of
reversible error in the Examiner's finding that Begovic's depicted
impressions include grooves.
Appellant additionally argues that there would have been no reason to
modify the structures of Begovic' s Figure 17 to arrive at the claimed subject
matter. App. Br. 8. We do not read the Examiner's reasoning as requiring
modification of any structure shown in Figure 17. Rather, the Examiner
determines that Begovic' s Figure 11 A shows an exemplary pattern of
impressions, whereas Figure 17 depicts the structure of individual
impressions. Appellant does not reveal error in the determination that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use one of the impressions
shown in Begovic' s Figure 1 7 when forming the overall pattern shown in
Begovic's Figure 1 lA.
For the foregoing reasons, Rejection I is sustained.
Rejection II
With regard to Rejection II, relevant to Appellant's arguments on
appeal, the Examiner finds that Popiolkowski discloses a textured process
chamber surface, in which the texture includes depressions bounded on
either side by protuberances. Final Act. 7 ( citing Popiolkowski Fig. 6). The
Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to form
Popiolkowski' s protuberances such that they surround the depressions, in
light of Begovic' s teaching that textured surfaces having that pattern are
5
Appeal2018-005660
Application 14/889,322
suitable for reducing contamination in a process chamber. Id. at 9-10.
Popiolkowski' s statement that the disclosed "protuberances and depressions
may contact, overlap, or merge with one another" (Popiolkowski 7:32-34) is
consistent with the Examiner's rationale.
Appellant argues that Popiolkowski "fails to disclose a raised feature
surrounding a depression." App. Br. 9 (emphasis added); see also Reply Br.
3. However, the Examiner relies on Begovic as evidence of a reason to
provide Popiolkowski with the argued feature. Appellant's argument
addressing Popiolkowski in isolation of Begovic neither refutes nor reveals
error in the Examiner's obviousness determination based on the combined
teachings of Popiolkowski and Begovic.
Appellant also argues that "the top surface is not a groove." App. Br.
9; Reply Br. 3. As noted, this argument is contrary to the Specification.
See, e.g., Spec. ,r 37, Figs. 6A, 6B. Appellant does not direct us to evidence
or reasoning that would support a construction of the term "groove" that
would exclude the embodiment depicted at Figures 6A and 6B of the
Specification.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not persuade us of
reversible error in connection with Rejection II, which is sustained.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 10-25 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).
AFFIRMED
6