Ex Parte Kao et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 9, 2019

12257093 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 9, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/257,093 10/23/2008 Chien-Teh Kao
44257 7590 07/11/2019
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.
008802USC2/AGS/SPARES/PJT 6413
EXAMINER
FORD, NATHAN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/11/2019 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 CHIEN-TEH KAO, 1
JOEL M. HUSTON, MEI CHANG,
and XIAOXIONG (JOHN) YUAN
Appeal2018-001463
Application 12/257,093
Technology Center 1700
Before MARK NAGUMO, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Chien-Teh Kao, Joel M. Huston, Mei Chang, Xiaoxiong (John) Yuan
("Kao") timely appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection2 of
all pending claims 1, 6-9, 11, 19-26, 28, and 29. 3 We have jurisdiction.
35 U.S.C. § 6. We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Applied Materials, Inc. (Appeal
Brief, filed 10 May 2017 ("Br."), 3.)
2 Office Action mailed 12 December 2016 ("Final Rejection"; cited as
"FR").
3 It is not entirely clear which claims Kao continues to appeal. In the
principal Brief, Kao contests all claims rejected in the Final Rejection,
Appeal2018-001463
Application 12/257,093
A. Introduction 4
OPINION
The subject matter on appeal relates to certain components of a
plasma processing chamber for semiconductor wafers, namely, a support
assembly (independent claims 1 and 23) and an edge ring (independent
claim 11).
The '093 Specification explains that native silicon oxide layers formed
on exposed silicon-containing layers are typically 5-20 angstroms thick and
electrically insulating. (Spec. 1 [0003].) For this reason, native oxide layers
are said to be "undesirable at interfaces with contact electrodes of
interconnecting electrical pathways because they cause high electrical
namely claims 1, 6-9, 11, 19-26, 28, and 29. But, in the Reply Brief
(filed 22 November 2017 ("Reply")), Kao states, "[t]he final rejection of
claims 1, 8, 9, 22, and 23-25 are appealed." (Reply 1, 1st para.)
Confusingly, in the following sentence, Kao states, "the Appellant maintains
each of the arguments submitted in the previously submitted Appeal Brief."
(Id.) And in the final sentence of the Reply, Kao "submits that the Examiner
erred in rejecting the pending claims over Lingampalli, Mizukami, Lei,
Yudovsky, Aruga, Gujer and Sugaya, and reversal of the rejections is
respectfully requested." (Id. at 5, last para.) While we might understand
from these representations that the appeal from the rejection of the following
groups of claims ( 6, 7, and 21 ), ( 11, 19, and 20), (26), and (28, 29) has been
withdrawn, the absence of a clear statement to that effect, or an amendment
cancelling some or all of those claims, and the ambiguous request for relief
leaves us uncertain. We therefore address all arguments presented in the
principal Brief on appeal.
4 Application 12/257,093, Support assembly, filed 23 October 2008, as a
continuation of an original application filed 22 February 2005, and claiming
the benefit of a provisional application filed 26 February 2004. We refer to
the '"093 Specification," which we cite as "Spec."
2
Appeal2018-001463
Application 12/257,093
contact resistance." (Id. at 1-2 [0004].) Native oxide layers are also thought
to impede diffusion reactions between deposited metals and the silicon
substrate that form desired metal silicides, and to prevent adhesion of other
subsequently deposited layers. (Id.) Various wet and dry etch methods are
known for removing native silicon oxide layers, but all are said to have
disadvantages, including the need for two separate chambers to complete the
processes. (Id. at 3 [0008].)
The processing chamber 100, 5 illustrated in Figure IA (below),
{Figure IA shows processing chamber 100}
which comprises the claimed components is said to be "capable of remote
plasma generation, heating and cooling, and thereby capable of performing a
single dry etch process in a single chamber (i.e. in-situ)." (Spec 3 [0009].)
5 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, labels to elements are presented in
bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
3
Appeal2018-001463
Application 12/257,093
Processing chamber 100 comprises chamber body 112, lid
assembly 200, and support assembly 300. (Spec. 7 [0030].) A "remote
plasma"-i.e., one that is not in direct contact with the substrate (not shown)
held on support assembly 300 in processing zone 140 of chamber
body 112-is generated in lid assembly 200 and reactive species are
delivered to the substrate via gas delivery assembly 220 (also known as a
"showerhead," id. at 10 [0040]) and through apertures 135 in removable
liner 133. The substrate may be, for example, a 300-mm silicon wafer
(id. at 31 [00114]) introduced to chamber body 112 via slit valve
opening 160 when support assembly 300 is in the appropriate lower position
(id. at 26 [0096]).
As shown in Figure 3A, below, support assembly 300 comprises
{Figure 3A shows a partial cross sectional view of support assembly 300
(shading of vacuum conduit 313 and gas conduit 335 added)}
4
Appeal2018-001463
Application 12/257,093
support member 310 (preferably aluminum (id. at 15 [0055])), which may
include a top plate 311 6 made of silicon or ceramic to reduce backside
contamination of the substrate. (Id.) In embodiments in which the substrate
is secured to support assembly 300 by a vacuum chuck, top plate 311
includes holes 312 in fluid communication with one or more grooves 316
formed in support member 310. (Id. at 15 [0057].) Grooves 316 are in fluid
communication with vacuum conduit 313 disposed in shaft 314. (Id.)
Vacuum conduit 313 may also supply a purge gas to the surface of support
member 310 to prevent a reactive gas from contacting the backside of the
substrate. (Id. at 16 [0057].)
In an embodiment, support member 310 has the form of disc-shaped
body 380, with upper surface 382, cylindrical outer surface 388, and lower
surface 384. (Spec. 18 [0066].) Flange 390 extends radially outward from
cylindrical outer surface 388, with lower surface 384 of disk-shaped
body 380 comprising one side of flange 390. (Id.) Shaft 314 is coupled to
lower surface 384 of disk-shaped body 380, and contains vacuum
conduit 313 (described supra), heat transfer fluid conduit 361, and gas
conduit 335. (Id.)
Heat transfer fluid channel 360 is formed in disk-shaped body 380
proximate lower surface 384 and flange 390. (Id.) The heat transfer fluid
may comprise, for example, water, nitrogen, ethylene glycol, or mixtures.
(Id. at 19 [0069].) Temperature control may be effected with use of a
thermocouple as the temperature sensor in a feedback loop. (Id.) Fluid
6 Top plate 311 is recited in independent claim 23, but not in independent
claim 1.
5
Appeal2018-001463
Application 12/257,093
channel 360 is coupled to heat transfer fluid conduit 361 in shaft 314. (Id.;
see also Figure 3B, not reproduced here.) Shaft 314 also contains gas
conduit 335, which is coupled to "gas conduit 335 formed through the disk-
shaped body 380 and exits the cylindrical outer surface 388 of the body 380.
The gas conduit 335 [in disk-shaped body 380] has an orientation
substantially perpendicular to a centerline of the disk-shaped body 380."
(Id. at 18 [0066].) Gas (e.g., nitrogen, argon, or helium (id. at 18 [0067]))
introduced through conduit 335 serves to purge the regions surrounding
disk-shaped body 380, thereby preventing unwanted deposition.
Edge ring 305 (independent claim 11) can be made from a variety of
materials, including aluminum, steel, ceramics, and quartz, and covers an
outer perimeter of support member 310 to protect the support member from
deposition. (Id. at 18 [0067].) Purge gas channel 334 is provided between
the outer surface 388 of support member 310 and the inner cylindrical
wall 372 of edge ring 305, and is in fluid communication with purge gas
conduit 335. (Id. at 18 [0067]-19 [0068]. 7) As shown in Figure 3, supra,
edge ring 305 may comprise an annular portion that extends down over disk-
shaped body 310, including flange 390. (id. at 19 [0068].)
Claim 1 is representative and reads:
A support assembly [300], comprising:
a substantially disk-shaped body [380];
a shaft [314] coupled to the disk-shaped body, the shaft
having
7 The citation in paragraph [0068] of "cylindrical outer surface 382" is a
typographical error, as 382 labels the upper surface of disk-shaped body 380
(Spec. 18 [0066]).
6
Appeal2018-001463
Application 12/257,093
a vacuum conduit [313],
a heat transfer fluid conduit [361] and
a gas conduit [335],
wherein the disk-shaped body [380] has:
a lower surface [384] of the disk-shaped body,
an upper surface [382] of the disk-shaped body
adapted to contact a substrate and
consisting of aluminum,
the upper surface [382] of the disk-shaped body
disposed in a first plane, and
a cylindrical outer surface [388] of the disk-
shaped body interfacing directly with a perimeter
of the upper surface [382] of the disk-shaped
body,
the cylindrical outer surface [388] of the disk-
shaped body comprising a curved surface
disposed in a second plane that is normal to the
first plane;
a thermocouple embedded in the disk-shaped body;
a flange [390] extending radially outward from the
cylindrical outer surface [388] of the disk-shaped body
in a third plane substantially parallel to the first plane;
a plurality of grooves [316] formed in the upper
surface [382] of the disk-shaped body;
a hole [312] coupling at least one of the grooves to the
vacuum conduit [313] of the shaft [314];
a body gas conduit [335]
formed through the disk-shaped body [380] and
coupling the gas conduit [335] of the shaft to the
cylindrical outer surface [388] of the disk-shaped body,
the body gas conduit [335] having an orientation
substantially perpendicular to a centerline of the
disk-shaped body; and
a fluid channel [360] for circulating a heat transfer fluid,
7
Appeal2018-001463
Application 12/257,093
the fluid channel formed in the disk-shaped body [380]
radially inward of the flange [390] and
extending from the lower surface [384] of the disk-shaped
body, below the body gas conduit [335], and
between the body gas conduit [335] and the
lower surface [384] of the disk-shaped body,
the fluid channel [360] coupled to
the heat transfer fluid conduit [361] of the shaft [314].
(Claims App., Br. 18; some formatting, emphasis, and bracketed labels to
element numbers in Figures 3A and 3B added.)
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection 8, 9 :
A. Claims 1, 8, 9, and 22 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) in view of the combined teachings of Lingampalli 11 ,
Mizukami 12, Lei 13 , and Yudovsky. 14
8 Examiner's Answer mailed 22 September 2017 ("Ans.").
9 Because this application was filed before the 16 March 2013, effective
date of the America Invents Act, we refer to the pre-AIA version of the
statute.
10 The Examiner, in the Answer, corrected the statement of the Final
Rejection, which erroneously included canceled claim 30. (Ans. 2, § (1 ).)
11 Ramkishan Rao Lingampalli, Article for use in a semiconductor
processing chamber and method of fabricating same, U.S. Patent
Application Publication 2003/0148035 Al (2003), assigned to Applied
Materials, Inc., the real-party-in-interest in this appeal.
12 Masami Mizukami et al., CVD film forming method in which a film
formation preventing gas is supplied in a direction from a rear surface of an
object to be processed, U.S. Patent No. 6,210,486 Bl (2001).
13 Lawrence C. Lei et al., Chemical vapor deposition chamber with a purge
guide, U.S. Patent No. 5,516,367 (1996).
14 Joseph Yudovsky, Heater with detachable ceramic top plate, U.S. Patent
Application Publication 2002/0069820 Al (2002).
8
Appeal2018-001463
Application 12/257,093
Al. Claims 6, 7, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
in view of the combined teachings of Lingampalli,
Mizukami, Lei, Yudovsky, and Gujer. 15
B. Claims 11, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) in view of the combined teachings of Lingampalli,
Yudovsky, and Aruga. 16
C. Claims 23-25 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Lingampalli, Mizukami,
Aruga, and Yudovsky.
Cl. Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) in view of
the combined teachings of Lingampalli, Mizukami, Aruga,
and Sugaya. 18
C2. Claims 28 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Lingampalli, Mizukami,
Aruga, Yudowsky, Sugaya and Gujer.
15 Rudolph Gujer et al., Semiconductor wafer support lift-pin assembly, U.S.
Patent Application Publication 2003/0205329 Al (2003).
16 Michio Aruga et al., Resistance heated stem mounted aluminum susceptor
assembly, U.S. Patent No. 5,688,331 (1997).
17 The Examiner, in the Answer, corrected the statement of the Final
Rejection, which erroneously included canceled claim 31. (Ans. 2, § (1 ).)
18 Masakazu Sugaya et al., Substrate temperature control system and method
for controlling temperature of substrate, U.S. Patent No. 6,518,548 B2
(2003).
9
Appeal2018-001463
Application 12/257,093
B. Discussion
The Board's findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by
a preponderance of the evidence of record.
Rejections A and Al (Independent claim 1)
Kao does not raise substantively distinct arguments for patentability
of any claim other than claim 1. The claims subject to these rejections
therefore stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016).
The Examiner makes numerous specific findings regarding structures
of a support assembly for semiconductor processing taught by Lingampalli.
(FR 2-3, 1. 3; 4, 11. 4-14.) The Examiner also makes specific findings
regarding limitations not taught by Lingampalli. (Id. at 3, 1. 4-4, 1. 4.) For
each difference between the claimed invention and embodiments described
by Lingampalli, the Examiner makes specific findings of structures taught
by the secondary references, and provides a specific rationale based on the
teachings of the prior art.
In particular, regarding the differently shaped geometry of the support
member described by Lingampalli, the Examiner finds that Mizukami
describes, in Figure 1, body 2, a structure of the disk-shaped body that meets
the geometric requirements recited in claim 1. (FR 3, 11. 7-10.) The
Examiner reasons that because the disk of Mizukani is also used as a
susceptor-i.e., a wafer-support platform in a chemical vapor deposition
("CVD") apparatus-it would have been obvious to use a disk having that
shape in place of the disk taught by Lingampalli. (Id. at 11. 10-13.)
Regarding the body gas (purge) conduit 224 (id. at 3, 1. 1) being underneath
10
Appeal2018-001463
Application 12/257,093
the heat transfer fluid channel 234 (id. at 1. 3) in the device described by
Lingampalli, the Examiner finds that Yudovsky describes a semiconductor
wafer processing chamber comprising a support assembly having body gas
conduit 268 and fluid channel 260 situated as required by claim 1. (FR 3,
11. 15-19.) Again, the Examiner reasons that the similar use of the devices
would have provided a reasonable expectation of successfully using the
geometry described by Yudovsky in place of that described by Lingampalli.
(Id. at 11. 19-23.) Finally, regarding the upper surface of the disk-shaped
body being made of aluminum, the Examiner finds that Lei describes such a
body 210 at Lei col. 4, 11. 25-35. (FR 3, 11. 25-27.) The Examiner
concludes that using such a known body for its known function would have
been obvious. (Id. at 3, 1. 27--4, 1. 3.)
Kao does not dispute with reasonable specificity any of the
Examiner's findings or analyses. Instead, Kao characterizes briefly its
interpretation of Lingampalli. (Br. 8, last para.) Kao then denies that
Lingampalli describes the limitations recited in claim 1 regarding the disk-
shaped body and the flange (italicized text in claim 1, supra). (Br. 9,
quoting, approximately, the passages italicized supra at 7-8.) Kao proceeds
to deny that the secondary references remedy the deficiencies of Lingampalli
by characterizing, briefly, its view of the teachings of the secondary
references, and repeating its denial, all without addressing the particular
findings of the Examiner regarding each reference. (Br. 8-10.) Kao does
not identify specific errors in the Examiner's findings of fact, and does not
address the Examiner's reasons for combining the specific teachings of the
references.
11
Appeal2018-001463
Application 12/257,093
At best, Kao invites the Board to review the teachings of the
references, compare the teachings with the claimed subject matter, and
determine whether the differences are such that, at the time of the invention,
the ordinary worker would have considered the claimed invention obvious or
not in view of those teachings. We decline to undertake such findings and
analysis de novo, as our primary role is review, not examination in the first
instance.
In the Reply, Kao reiterates the broad arguments discussed supra, and
argues, belatedly, that the Examiner failed to demonstrate motivation in the
prior art, to combine the teachings of the references. (Reply 3-4, 1st para.)
Because Kao fails to show good cause why the arguments regarding lack of
motivation could not have been presented in the principal Brief on appeal,
we decline to consider them. 37 C.F.R. § 41.4I(b)(2). In any event, these
arguments are not persuasive because Kao fails to address the particular
findings of fact made by the Examiner, including the specific rationales
presented for combining the teachings of the references, summarized supra.
Kao raises a further, "more important[]" argument that the Examiner,
in the Answer [Ans. 3], mischaracterized Mizukami as depicting "a body gas
conduit (12b) between the cylindrical outer surface (12c) and an edge
ring (9)." (Reply 4, 1st full para.) "However," Kao argues, "the claimed gas
conduit is 'formed through the disk-shaped body and coupling the gas
conduit of the shaft to the cylindrical outer surface of the disk-shaped body.'
In contrast, gas conduit (12b) of Mizukami is formed outside of and not
through the body." (Id.) Additionally, Kao points out that "no gas conduits
are provided through any portion of the body of Mizukami." (Id.)
12
Appeal2018-001463
Application 12/257,093
This argument is not persuasive of harmful error in the rejection. In
the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner explains in more detail the structural
and functional equivalence of "gas conduit passage 12" between shield
tube 10 and shield ring 9 on one side, and susceptor 2 on the other, as shown
in Mizukami Figure 2, with corresponding passage 208 in Lingampalli,
Figure 2, reproduced below.
{Mizukami Figure 2, below left}
{Mizukami Figure 2 shows purge
gas passage 12}
{Lingampalli, Figure 2, below right}
{Lingampalli Figure 2 (partial)
shows purge passage 208}
The Examiner finds that susceptor 2 corresponds to disk-shaped
body 380 (substrate support member 310) recited in claim 1, where the
region of susceptor 2 adjacent to passage portion 12a corresponds to
flange 390. Both passages 12 and 208 perform substantially the same
function, namely, providing a path for purge gases to flow by the side of the
substrate support member. This is the evidentiary basis for the Examiner's
conclusion that, "[i]n view of Mizukami's demonstration that a disk-shaped
body of this configuration is effective for supporting a substrate, it would
have been obvious to reconstitute Lingampalli's body similarly." (FR 3,
13
Appeal2018-001463
Application 12/257,093
11. 10-11.) Because Mizukami's Figure 2 is merely an enlargement of the
corresponding portion of Mizukami's Figure 1, albeit with more detailed
labels, the Examiner merely explains again the evidentiary basis of the
conclusion that it would have been obvious to provide the same shape to
"Lingampalli' s body."
Kao' s further arguments that Mizukami does not teach a gas conduit
in the interior of susceptor body 2 are belated, without a showing of good
cause why they were not presented in the principal Brief on Appeal.
Substantively, they fail to address the rejection, which relies on the internal
structure described by Lingampalli, as modified by the teachings of
Yudovsky, summarized supra at 11 19, for the relative positioning of heat
fluid transfer channel 360 and purge gas conduit 335. It is improper to
assume that a modification requires the bodily incorporation of an element
described by one reference into a structure taught by another reference. Cf
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981) ("The test for obviousness is
not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily
incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test
is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art.") ( citations omitted).
Regarding Rejection Al of claims 6, 7, and 21, Kao urges that "Gujer
fails to remedy the deficiencies of [the references] ... Gujer does not teach
or suggest a fluid channel for circulating a heat transfer fluid and/ or the
19 The Examiner also cites Lingampalli Figure 6 (FR 2, 1. 23), which shows a
configuration in which heat transfer fluid conduit 608 lies below purge gas
conduit 626 through support assembly 600.
14
Appeal2018-001463
Application 12/257,093
geometry of the claimed disk-shaped body." (Br., para. bridging 10-11.) As
explained supra, we have found no such deficiencies, and we therefore are
not persuaded of harmful error by this argument.
We affirm Rejections A and Al.
Rejection B (Independent claim 11)
Kao presents arguments based solely on limitations recited in
independent claim 11, which is drawn to an edge ring that, in embodiments,
surrounds the substrate support member. Claim 11 reads as follows:
An edge ring [305] for a support assembly
configured to engage a substrate support member [310]
having
a flange [390] extending from a cylindrical outer
surface [388] of a disk-shaped body [380] and
a top plate [311] disposed on an exposed aluminum
surface of the disk-shaped body,
the edge ring [305] comprising:
a cylindrical aluminum ring body [370] sized to
circumscribe the disk-shaped body [380] and
sized to circumscribe a substrate disposed on the top plate
during processing;
a top lip [374] extending radially inwardfrom the
ring body [370] to a position adjacent a top surface of the
disk-shaped body [380], the top lip [374] having
a surface disposed in a first plane that is coplanar with
the top surface of the top plate [311];
a first cylindrical inner wall [372]
extending from the ring body [370] and
forming a curved surface in a second plane that is
normal to the first plane and
sized to maintain a gap between the cylindrical outer
surface [388] of the disk-shaped body and the first
cylindrical inner wall [372]; and
15
Appeal2018-001463
Application 12/257,093
a bottom lip [376] extending from the ring body [370]
extending in the second plane to contact and circumscribe
the flange [390],
wherein a fluid channel [360] for circulating a heat
transfer fluid therethrough is formed in the disk-shaped
body [380] radially inward of the flange [390],
the fluid channel [360] being located below a body
gas conduit [335] and between the body gas
conduit [335] and the lower surface [384] of the disk-
shaped body,
the fluid channel [360] being coupled to a heat
transfer fluid conduit [361] of a shaft [314],
the bottom lip [376] having a second cylindrical inner
wall [378] that is concentric with the ring body [370].
(Claims App., Br. 19-20, some formatting, emphasis, and bracketed labels
to elements shown in Figure 3A added.)
The Examiner finds, inter alia, that Lingampalli, in Figure 2, describes
annular aluminum edge ring 204 disposed about the cylindrical outer surface
of the disk-shaped body to create a passage [208]. (FR 4, last para.) The
Examiner finds that Lingampalli does not disclose a protective top plate, but
that Aruga does, and that it would have been obvious to use such a plate on
the disk-shaped body "to obviate fluorine penetration." (Id.) The Examiner
relies on the discussion of Yudovsky in the rejection of claim 1 to account
for the "orientative nexus of the body gas conduit, the fluid channel, and the
flange." (Id. at 5, 11. 3--4.)
Kao responds that "[ o ]ne side of the purge channel 208 is defined by
the upper portion 212 of the support assembly, which is shown as a tapered,
angled surface that terminates at the restrictor 240." (Br. 11, last para.) Kao
focuses on the substrate support assembly described by Yudovsky, and urges
that "Yudovsky fails remedy the deficiencies of Lingampalli." (Id. at 12, 1st
16
Appeal2018-001463
Application 12/257,093
para.) Kao also focuses on the shape of block 39, which "tapers from an
upper surface to a lower surface," of the susceptor assembly described by
Aruga, and asserts that "Aruga fails to remedy the deficiencies of
Lingampalli and Yudovsky." (Id.) Kao then recites the italicized portions
of claim 11 relating to features of the edge ring. (Id.)
Responding to Kao' s apparent position that the references do not
describe or suggest various features of the edge ring recited in the claim, the
Examiner provides an enlarged portion of Figure 2 of Lingampalli and
identifies the structures that, in the Examiner's view, meet or suggest the
various required limitations recited in claim 11. (Ans. 3--4.)
In the Reply, Kao appears to withdraw the appeal with respect to
claims 11, 19, and 20 but does not do so expressly. (Reply 1.) In any event,
on the present record, we affirm Rejection B of claims 11, 19, and 20
because Kao does not identify harmful error in the rejection.
Rejections C, Cl, and C2 (Independent claim 23)
Regarding Rejections C, C 1, and C2, Kao argues substantively only
the limitations regarding the disk-shaped body (but not including the flange)
and the fluid channel italicized in claim 1, supra. (Br. 13, 3d para., 14,
3d full para.) Kao urges, again, that the secondary references do not remedy
the deficiencies of Lingampalli, alone or in combination with the other
references. (Id. at 13-14; for Rejections Cl and C2, id. at 14, last para.,
through 16.) For the reasons given supra, we do not find these arguments
persuasive of harmful error in the rejections.
We affirm Rejections C, Cl, and C2.
17
Appeal2018-001463
Application 12/257,093
C. Order
It is ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1, 6-9, 11, 19-26, 28,
and 29 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
18