Ex Parte Huang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 27, 2017

13927631 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 2017)

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.
13/927,631 06/26/2013 Chien Kuo HUANG T5057-881 4198
95496 7590 11/29/2017
Hauptman Ham, LLP (TSMC)
2318 Mill Road
Suite 1400
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
ZERVIGON, RUDY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/29/2017 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):
tsmc@ipfirm.com
sramunto @ ipfirm.com
pair_lhhb @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHIEN KUO HUANG, SHIH-WEN HUANG,
JOUNG-WEILIOU, CHIA-I SHEN, and FEI-FAN CHEN
Appeal 2017-003207
Application 13/927,631
Technology Center 1700
Before JULIA HEANEY, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and BRIAN D. RANGE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-18, 21 and 22.3 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 We cite to the Substitute Specification (“Spec.”) filed June 26, 2013; Final
Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated December 24, 2015; Appellant’s Appeal
Brief (“App. Br.”) dated June 28, 2016; Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated
October 27, 2016; and Appellant’s Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) dated
December 27, 2016.
2 Appellant is applicant, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company,
Ltd., which Appellant identifies as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
3 Pending claims 4, 5, and 8 are not rejected or otherwise addressed in the
Final Office Action.
Appeal 2017-003207
Application 13/927,631
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to wafer process chamber and,
particularly, a controllable diffuser configured to selectively generate forces
acting on a process gas introduced to the chamber to affect spread of the
process gas within the chamber. Spec. 1, 24. Forces generated by the
diffuser may arise from electric power delivered to the diffuser to impart
forces on ions present in the process gas, or from pressurized secondary gas
delivered to the diffuser. Id. at 30. In either instance, a controller operates
to control the magnitude and/or direction of the generated forces and,
consequently, the flow path experienced by the process gas. Id. at 29.
Claim 9 is illustrative and is reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the
Appeal Brief as follows:
9. A process chamber, comprising:
an inlet configured to receive a flow of a gaseous
material;
a wafer support in the process chamber, the wafer
support configured to support thereon a wafer and to heat and
rotate the wafer during wafer processing; and
at least one controllable diffuser disposed in the process
chamber between the inlet and the wafer support, the at least
one controllable diffuser configured to generate controllable
forces acting in various directions on the gaseous material
introduced into the process chamber to spread the gaseous
material inside the process chamber.
2
Appeal 2017-003207
Application 13/927,631
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:4
I. Claims 1-3, 6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Long.5
II. Claims 9-11 and 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)6 as
anticipated by Kaeppeler.7
III. Claims 11-14, 18, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kaeppeler and Fischer.8
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Appellant presents no argument contesting Rejection I. See App. Br.
6-14; Reply Br. 4-6. Accordingly, we summarily sustain Rejection I as
applied to each of claims 1-3, 6, and 7.
Rejections II and III
Each of Rejections II and III is premised on the Examiner’s finding
that Kaeppeler discloses a controllable diffuser, as is recited in each of
independent claims 9 and 21. See Final Act. 6, 8, 12. Claim 9 requires “at
least one controllable diffuser . . . configured to generate controllable forces
acting in various directions on the gaseous material introduced into the
4 Final Act. 3-13; Ans. 2.
5 US 2003/0084848 Al, published May 8, 2003 (“Long”).
6 The Examiner mistakenly, but harmlessly, identifies a pre-AIA version of
35 U.S.C. § 102 which is not applicable to this case. See Final Act. 6, 12.
7 US 2005/0000441 Al, published January 6, 2005 (“Kaeppeler”).
8 US 7,837,825 B2, issued November 23, 2010 (“Fischer”).
3
Appeal 2017-003207
Application 13/927,631
process chamber.” Claim 21 requires a plurality of such controllable
diffusers, and further specifies that the controllable diffusers comprise either
a plurality of electrodes configured to generate electric fields or a plurality
of hollow bodies configured to receive a pressurized gas.
The Examiner relies on elements 4 and 5 identified in Kaeppeler’s
Figure 3, reproduced below, as providing the claimed controllable diffuser.
Final Act. 6.
13*
n is is 14 4 si
8
Kaeppeler’s Figure 3 depicts a region of a process chamber showing a gas
inlet member 4 having a peripheral outlet opening 5 conveying a first
process gas and a central flow passage 14 for conveying a second process
gas. Kaeppeler 14-15. In use, the second process gas is delivered
through openings 6 in an electrode 13 to a plasma-containing region of the
chamber generated in part by the electrode 13, whereas the first process gas
4
Appeal 2017-003207
Application 13/927,631
is delivered through a porous ring 17. Kaeppeler’s respective gas outlets are
separated such that only the second process gas is impacted by the electrode­
generated plasma. Id. atlHf 5, 24.
Appellant argues that Kaeppeler’s gas inlet member 4 is static, and
that the Examiner fails to identify any component in Kaeppeler’s gas inlet
structure that can operate as a controllable diffuser. App. Br. 8-9. We
agree.
The Examiner relies on Kaeppeler’s elements 4 and 5, collectively, as
disclosure of a controllable diffuser. Final Act. 6 (identifying Kaeppeler’s
controllable diffuser as “4, 5; Figure 1, 3”). In the Answer, the Examiner
expands on that finding by noting that the claimed controllable diffuser
encompasses “forces caused by impact of jets of pressurized gas” and that
“Kaeppeler’s flow streams 14-6 and 21-5 in Figure 3 define flow paths that
manefest [sic] Applicant’s described ‘forces’ as such ‘jets’ of gas.” Ans. 4.
The Examiner further finds that “Kaeppeler’s RF powered electrode 13,
Figure 3 ‘partially decomposes’ the process gas through conduit 6 into
plasma.” Id. In light of these explanations, we understand the Examiner’s
reading of Kaeppeler as including a controllable diffuser to be based either
on a finding that Kaeppeler’s first process gas exiting element 5 would
controllably affect the second process gas flow exiting element 4, or that
Kaeppeler’s plasma-generating electrode 13 would controllably affect the
second process gas by decomposing the gas exiting element 4.
However, the Examiner fails to identify sufficient evidence or credible
technical reasoning to support either finding. To the contrary, Kaeppeler
teaches that the respective first and second gas outlets are separated, such
that only one of the two gas flows contacts the plasma zone. Kaeppeler ]fl[ 5,
5
Appeal 2017-003207
Application 13/927,631
24. Such separation contradicts any inference that one process gas
controllably affects flow of the other. Nor does the Examiner explain why
plasma decomposition of one of the process gases within the process
chamber renders Kaeppeler’s plasma-generating electrode a controllable
diffuser configured to generate controllable forces acting in various
directions.
On this record, we are persuaded that the Examiner fails to identify
evidence sufficient to support a finding that Kaeppeler discloses a
controllable diffuser as claimed. Accordingly, Rejections II and III are not
sustained.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 6, and 7 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 9-18, 21 and 22 is reversed.
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
6