10916959 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 8, 2010)

Ex Parte Kim

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesOct 8, 2010

10916959 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 8, 2010)

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. 10/916,959 08/11/2004 Jae-Gwan Kim 6534-008 1659 83219 7590 10/08/2010 HOSOON LEE 9600 SW OAK ST. SUITE 525 TIGARD, OR 97223 EXAMINER KACKAR, RAM N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1716 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/08/2010 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 JAE-GWAN KIM ____________ Appeal 2010-001192 Application 10/916,959 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges. KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 16, 17, and 21-23. Claims 4-6, 10, 12-15, 18 and 20 have been withdrawn from consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2010-001192 Application 10/916,959 1. An apparatus for a semiconductor device, comprising: a chamber; a susceptor in the chamber, wherein the susceptor moves up or down according to a process step, wherein a substrate loaded on the susceptor has a substrate boundary portion and the susceptor has a susceptor boundary portion exposed outside the substrate boundary portion and wherein a surface of the susceptor in the region where the substrate is loaded and a surface of the susceptor in the susceptor boundary portion are coplanar; an edge frame contacting the susceptor and the substrate when the susceptor moves up, the edge frame comprising: a first sub-frame contacting the substrate boundary portion and the susceptor boundary portion when the susceptor moves up; and a second sub-frame surrounding the first sub-frame, wherein the second sub-frame contacts the susceptor boundary portion when the susceptor moves up; and a frame supporter on a side wall of the chamber, the frame supporter supporting the second sub-frame. In addition to the Admitted Prior Art (APA), the Examiner relies upon the following reference as evidence of obviousness (Ans. 2): Cheng et al. (Cheng) 5,304,248 Apr. 19, 1994 Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to an apparatus for a semiconductor device comprising a susceptor which holds a substrate within a chamber, and an edge frame which contacts the susceptor and the substrate when the susceptor moves up inside the chamber. The edge frame comprises a first sub-frame which contacts the boundary portions of the substrate and susceptor, and a second sub-frame which surrounds the first sub-frame and which contacts the boundary portion of the susceptor. 2 Appeal 2010-001192 Application 10/916,959 According to Appellant, “[w]ith such an arrangement, the weight of a portion substantially covering and pressing the substrate can be reduced by using the edge frame 200 divided into independent portions” (App. Br. sentence bridging 6-7). Appealed claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 16-17, and 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over the APA in view of Cheng. Appellant does not present separate arguments for any particular claim on appeal. Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall together with claim 1 (see App. Br. 11, second and third full paras.). We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection for essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for emphasis. There is no dispute that the APA depicted in Appellant’s drawings “discloses a susceptor in a process chamber with a substrate having a boundary portion and the susceptor having a boundary portion exposed outside the substrate boundary portion, a wide edge frame of ceramic over the substrate and a frame supporter on the side wall of the chamber” (Ans. 3, third para.). As appreciated by the Examiner, the APA does not teach an edge frame comprising two sub-frames, as presently claimed. However, as set forth by the Examiner, Cheng discloses a multi-unit shield ring, or edge frame, which covers a boundary portion of the substrate. Cheng teaches that the multi-unit ring shield “can be made of ceramic which is a much harder 3 Appeal 2010-001192 Application 10/916,959 material than aluminum for example, and that is much less likely to generate particles within the chamber” (col. 7, ll. 48-51). The reference further teaches “[s]ince the width of each unit of a multi-unit ring shield can be optimized with respect to temperature differences at different places within the chamber, cracking can also be eliminated” (col. 7, ll. 51-55). Cheng explains that “[t]he multi-unit ring shield 100 has the advantage that it can be made much wider without cracking than can a single unit ring shield 50” (col. 7, l. 68-col. 8, l. 2). Cheng also explains that the hard materials of the multi-unit shield ring are not susceptible to cracking due to temperature differences within the chamber during CVD processing (col. 8, ll. 30-34). Hence, based on the state of the prior art, we fully concur with the Examiner that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the single shield or frame of the APA into two or more parts to attain the advantages espoused by Cheng. The principal argument advanced by Appellant is that the appealed claims require that the first sub-frame contacts the substrate boundary portion and the susceptor boundary portion, but “[n]othing in Cheng, however, teaches a shield ring 50 that contacts a susceptor 40” (App. Br. 8, first full para.). Appellant urges that “the susceptor 40 of Cheng is actually prevented from contacting the shield ring 50 by the wafer 10” (id.). Appellant’s argument misses the thrust of the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner cites the APA for teaching a frame that contacts the substrate and the susceptor, and cites Cheng only for the proposition that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the frame of the APA such that it is divided into more than one piece in order to render it 4 Appeal 2010-001192 Application 10/916,959 less susceptible to cracking due to temperature differences within the chamber during processing. Appellant also submits that [b]ecause the edge frame 20 of AAPA, without modification by Cheng, already covers a majority of the area between the substrate 10 on the susceptor 40 and the inner wall of the chamber body 30, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify the edge frame 20 of AAPA with a shield of two parts as disclosed by Cheng (App. Br. 9, fifth para.). However, the motivation would arise from achieving the advantage of reducing cracking due to temperature differences within the chamber, as taught by Cheng. As a final point, we note that Appellant bases no argument upon objective evidence of non-obviousness, such as unexpected results. In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims 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) (2008). AFFIRMED ssl HOSOON LEE 9600 SW OAK ST. SUITE 525 TIGARD, OR 97223 5