Ex Parte Iyer et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 23, 2012

10911208 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 23, 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.
10/911,208 08/04/2004 R. Suryanarayanan Iyer 007395 7437
44257 7590 07/24/2012
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX
3040 POST OAK BOULEVARD, SUITE 1500
HOUSTON, TX 77056
EXAMINER
ZERVIGON, RUDY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/24/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte R. SURYANARAYANAN LYER, SEAN M. SEUTTER,
JACOB W. SMITH, GERGORY W. DIBELLO, ALEXANDER TAM,
BINH TRAN, and SANJEEV TANDON
____________

Appeal 2011-007821
Application 10/911,208
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, RICHARD E. SCHAFER, and
CHUNG K. PAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 1 and 14 as
unpatentable over Matsuki (US 6,537,928 B1, March 25, 2003) in view of
Welch (US 6,192,827 B1, February 27, 2001) and of dependent claims 3-6,
8-13, 15, 16, 18-21, and 23 as unpatentable over these references alone or in
combination with other prior art of record. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6.
Appeal 2011-007821
Application 10/911,208

2
We AFFIRM.

Appellants claim an apparatus for depositing film on a substrate
comprising: a chamber body and a chamber lid 110; a gas delivery system
mounted on the chamber lid comprising an adapter ring 103, a blocker plate
104 fastened to the chamber lid, a blocker plate 105 fastened to the adapter
ring, and a face plate 108 fastened to the adapter ring; and a slit valve liner
115 partially lining a slit valve channel 114 in the chamber body
(independent claim 1; see also independent claim 14; Figs. 1-2).

Representative claim 1 reads as follows:
1. An apparatus for low temperature deposition of a film on
a semiconductor substrate, comprising:
chamber body and a chamber lid defining a processing region;
a substrate support disposed in the processing region;
a gas delivery system mounted on the chamber lid, the gas delivery
system comprising an adapter ring and two blocker plates that define a gas
mixing region, and a face plate fastened to the adapter ring, wherein one of
the blocker plates is fastened to the chamber lid and the other blocker plate
is fastened to the adapter ring;
a heating element positioned to heat the adapter ring; and
a slit valve liner partially lining a slit valve channel in the chamber
body.

Appellants' arguments are directed solely to limitations required by
independent claims 1 and 14, of which claim 1 is representative (App. Br.
11-16). As a consequence, the dependent claims on appeal will stand or fall
with their parent independent claims.

Appeal 2011-007821
Application 10/911,208

3
The Examiner concedes that Matsuki does not expressly teach
fastening low-temperature plate (i.e., face plate) 3 to insulator (i.e., adapter
ring) 8 but concludes that it would have been prima facie obvious to fastened
plate 3 to insulator 8 in order to obtain the assembly of elements shown in
Figure 3 via a fastening technique shown in Figure 3 for fastening other
elements (Ans. 7-8). The Examiner also concedes that the Matsuki
apparatus does not include a partially lined slit valve channel but concludes
that it would have been prima facie obvious to provide the apparatus with
such a channel in view of Welch's disclosures in Figure 5 and the paragraph
bridging columns 8-9 (id.).

For the reasons given in the Answer, substantial evidence supports the
Examiner's above conclusions of obviousness, and therefore we sustain the
Examiner's § 103 rejections. The following comments are added for
emphasis.

Appellants argue that fastening Matsuki's plate 3 to insulator 8 would
require re-engineering not obvious to one with ordinary skill in this art (App.
Br. 12; Reply Br. 2-4). However, Appellants have provided no evidence
whatsoever in support of this argument. On the other hand, Figure 3 of
Matsuki evinces that fastening such elements together is within the level of
ordinary skill, as detailed in the Answer. Based on the record before us,
Appellants' argument lacks persuasive merit.

Appeal 2011-007821
Application 10/911,208

4
Appellants also argue that Welch would not have suggested providing
the Matsuki apparatus with a partially lined slit valve channel because it is
unclear that Figure 5 of Welch shows a lined slit valve channel and because
such a structure might have detrimental consequences in the Matsuki
apparatus (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 4-5). Again, Appellants have provided no
evidence in support to this argument. Moreover, Appellants do not discuss
the disclosure cited by the Examiner in the paragraph bridging columns 8-9
of Welch. We agree with the Examiner that the disclosures in this paragraph
and in Figure 5 of Welch evince that it would have been prima facie obvious
to provide Matsuki with a partially lined slit valve channel in order to obtain
the transferring function provided by the channel and the protecting function
provided by the liner.

The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

sld