Ex Parte Kudela et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 9, 201813732203 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2018) Copy Citation 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. 12102 US D1 6833 EXAMINER LAW, NGA LEUNG V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1717 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 13/732,203 12/31/2012 27432 7590 ( ROBERT J. STERN 3074 HARCROSS RD WOODSIDE, CA 94062-2321 Jozef Kudela 02/12/2018 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOZEF KUDELA, CARL A. SORENSEN, SOO YOUNG CHOI, and JOHN M. WHITE Appeal 2017-006851 Application 13/732,203 Technology Center 1700 Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Primary Examiner’s final decision2 to reject claims 17, 21—26, 29, 31, and 32.3 We 1 The Appellant is the Applicant, Applied Materials, Inc., which, according to the Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed on September 2, 2016, hereinafter “Appeal Br.,” 3. 2 Appeal Br. 6—21; Final Office Action (notice emailed on February 1, 2016) hereinafter “Final Act.,” 2—16; Examiner’s Answer (notice emailed on January 25, 2017), hereinafter “Ans.,” 2—21; Reply Brief filed on March 25 2017, hereinafter “Reply Br.,” 2. 3 The Appeal Brief states that claims 27 and 28 are on appeal. Appeal Br. 4. In the Answer, however, the Examiner clarifies that these claims were previously withdrawn from consideration pursuant to a restriction requirement and election. Ans. 2. Therefore, these claims are not before us. Appeal 2017-006851 Application 13/732,203 have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. I. BACKGROUND The inventors state it is important to have high spatial uniformity over the surface of a workpiece in plasma chambers used to perform fabrication processes for electronic devices. Specification filed on December 31, 2012, hereinafter “Spec.,” Tflf 3^4. The inventors state that conventional designs attempt to address this by maximizing spatial uniformity of a plasma density, but this method cannot compensate for plasma non-uniformities due to asymmetries in the geometry of the plasma chamber. Id. 5—6. Specifically, the inventors state that the workpiece passageway in a plasma chamber produces asymmetry in plasma density. Id. ^ 7. The inventors address this problem by supplying radio frequency (RF) power asymmetrically to an electrode of the plasma chamber so the supply of power is offset toward the direction of the workpiece passageway. Id. 1 8. Representative claim 26 is reproduced from page 24 of the Appeal Brief Claims Appendix, as follows (emphases added): 26. A method of coupling RF power to a plasma chamber, comprising the steps of: providing a plasma chamber having a workpiece passageway; providing an electrode positioned so as to couple electrical power from the electrode to a plasma within the plasma chamber, wherein a first half of the electrode is closer to the workpiece passageway than a second half of the electrode; and supplying RF power to one or more RF drive points on the first half of the electrode; wherein the second half of the electrode includes no RF drive points that are connected to receive RF power. 2 Appeal 2017-006851 Application 13/732,203 II. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL On appeal, the Examiner maintains several rejections under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), which are as follows (Ans. 2—12; Final Act. 2—12): A. Claims 17, 21, 26, and 31 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (hereinafter “Long”)4 in view of Welch et al. (hereinafter “Welch”);5 B. Claims 22—24 as being unpatentable over Long in view of Welch and further in view of Sato;6 and C. Claims 25, 29, and 32 as being unpatentable over Long in view of Welch and further in view of White et al. (hereinafter “White”).7 III. DISCUSSION Rejection A Claims 17, 21, 26, and 31 are rejected as being unpatentable over Long in view of Welch. The Appellant argues claim 26 as a first group, claim 31 as a second group, and claims 17 and 21 as a third group. Appeal Br. 6—21. We select claims 26, 31, and 17 as representative of the issues on appeal for these respective groups. Claim 26 The Examiner finds Long discloses a method for generating and controlling plasma by coupling RF power to a plasma region via an 4 US 2003/0079983 Al, published on May 1, 2003. 5 US 6,192,827 Bl, issued on Feb. 27, 2001. 6 US 2008/0237031 Al, published on Oct. 2, 2008. 7 US 2005/0183827 Al, published on Aug. 25, 2005. 3 Appeal 2017-006851 Application 13/732,203 electrode in a plasma chamber. Ans. 5. The Examiner finds Long discloses that a non-uniformity is caused in the plasma by design asymmetries, such as a chamber opening, the electrode can be divided into sub-electrodes, and RF power can be independently controlled for the sub-electrodes to control uniformity of the plasma. Id. at 5—6. The Examiner finds Welch discloses a chamber opening can be positioned on the side of a plasma chamber but that the opening causes a non-uniformity in the plasma. Id. In view of the disclosures of Long and Welch, the Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to adjust the number and design of Long’s sub-electrodes to control the uniformity of the plasma as a matter of discovering the optimal values of a result-effective variable. Id. at 6—7. The Appellant contends the only embodiment described in Long having asymmetrical RF drive points is Figure 2b, but Long explicitly discloses this arrangement does not affect plasma asymmetry due to a workpiece passageway. Appeal Br. 6—8. The Appellant acknowledges Long discloses the embodiment of Figure 3b as possibly alleviating such a non uniformity, but argues Long does not disclose the positions of RF drive points for the embodiment of Figure 3b and thus Long teaches away from the claimed invention. Id. at 7—10. The Appellant further asserts that Welch does not disclose RF drive points of an electrode, and thus the combination of Long and Welch does not disclose or suggest the arrangement of RF drive points recited in claim 26. Id. at 10—15; Reply Br. 2. The Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. Long discloses a process in which an RF field forms a plasma in a space between electrodes that is divided into several sub-electrodes connected to independent RF 4 Appeal 2017-006851 Application 13/732,203 power supplies that each control a power level, frequency, phase angle, and waveform of RF power. Long || 2, 27. Long teaches that the configuration of the local electric field is controlled by adjusting the power, frequency, phase angle, and waveform for the individual sub-electrodes to affect the spatial distribution of the electric field and plasma density. Id. ]Hf 11, 42. Long further discloses that “[n]on-uniformity problems may be caused by design asymmetries, such as that which may be due to the chamber opening for load lock.” Id. 144. Long discloses that the annular structure shown in Figure 2b does not solve this problem, but “the asymmetrical configuration shown in FIG. 3b might alleviate such non-uniformity problems.” Id. Specifically, Long discloses that the arrangement of Figure 3b can “alleviate field non-uniformity by direct spatial compensation.” Id. 1 35. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). See also In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“a claim to a product does not become nonobvious simply because the patent specification provides a more comprehensive explication of the known relationships between the variables and the affected properties”). Similarly, variations in design consistent with principles known in the art with no evidence to indicate any critical difference or unexpected result do not confer patentability. See also In re Rice, 341 F.2d 309, 314 (CCPA 1965). Applying these precedents, we conclude that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the arrangement and geometries of Long’s sub-electrodes by determining workable or 5 Appeal 2017-006851 Application 13/732,203 optimal arrangements of the sub-electrodes and control of sub-electrode RF power supplies for controlling plasma density as a matter of routine experimentation and design within the level of the ordinary skill, thus arriving at an arrangement or configuration within the scope of claim 26. Welch’s teachings further support an obviousness conclusion. Welch 1:37—53. Specifically, Welch teaches that the workpiece passageway in the side of the processing chamber creates a geometric discontinuity in the chamber. Id. at 1:37-42. Welch further teaches that this passageway causes a distortion in the plasma within the chamber leading to non-uniform deposition or etch. Id. at 1:47—53. Thus, Welch teaches the same problem as Long with regard to the workpiece passageway causing plasma asymmetries. Significantly, however, Long discloses not only controlling the power, frequency, phase angle, and waveform of RF power supplied to individual sub-electrodes to adjust field uniformity, but also changing the geometry and arrangement of sub-electrodes to affect the spatial distribution of the electric field and plasma density. See Long H 11, 27, 42, 44. Consistent with the Examiner’s explanation at page 20 of the Examiner’s Answer, Long’s disclosure is not limited to the embodiment depicted in Figure 2b. Thus, Long’s teachings must be considered as a whole, including the embodiment of Figure 3b. Moreover, as the Examiner states, RF drive points are related to the design of the sub-electrodes. Ans. 15. The Examiner also finds that the arrangement depicted in Figure 3b includes sub-electrodes on one electrode half that would have more drive points than the other half. Ans. 14—15. Therefore, a change in sub-electrode design (e.g., shape and/or position) 6 Appeal 2017-006851 Application 13/732,203 would result in changing the positions of the RF drive points connecting the sub-electrodes to their independent RF power sources, such as shifting the RF drive points to the side of electrode near the passage where plasma uniformity is disrupted. Here, Long teaches that sub-electrode design and RF power supplied to sub-electrodes affect electric field uniformity and plasma density and both Long and Welch recognize that the chamber passage affects plasma uniformity. The Appellant further argues Welch does not disclose whether the effect of a chamber passage upon plasma is an increase or decrease upon plasma flux, as the Examiner finds at page 6 of the Examiner’s Answer. Appeal Br. 11. Regardless of whether the Examiner’s finding is supported or not, Long recognizes the effect of a chamber opening upon plasma uniformity (Long 144), and Welch discloses that the passage can be located in a side wall of a chamber (Welch 1:37-42). These disclosures would have suggested that the plasma uniformity adjustments disclosed by Long may be shifted toward that side of the chamber to compensate for the non-uniformity created in the plasma by the passage. The Examiner finds Welch discloses the expansion of plasma into the passage, which one would expect to result in the decrease of plasma density. Ans. 16—17. Welch discloses that the passage results in the plasma to expand into the cavity of the passage. Welch 1:42-47. The Appellant does not respond to the Examiner’s finding or otherwise identify a reversible error in the Examiner’s finding. In addition, the Appellant contends that Chen and Yamazawa, which were cited in the Final Office Action as further evidentiary references, do not support the Examiner’s rejection. Appeal Br. 12—14. Neither Chen nor Yamazawa negates the obviousness of claim 26 in view of the disclosures of 7 Appeal 2017-006851 Application 13/732,203 Long and Welch and what they would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. As discussed above, the disclosures of Long and Welch support the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to modify the sub-electrode arrangements disclosed by Long and provide the arrangement recited in claim 26. For these reasons and those set forth in the Examiner’s Answer, the Appellant’s arguments do not identify a reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 26. Claim 31 The Appellant contends that claim 31 is patentable over Long and Welch for similar reasons as claim 26. Appeal Br. 15. Specifically, the Appellant argues that Long discloses its only embodiment with RF drive points (Figure 2b) does not solve the problem of plasma non-uniformity due to design asymmetries (e.g., a chamber passage) and Welch does not remedy the deficiencies of Long. Id. at 15—16. For the reasons discussed above with regard to the rejection of claim 26 and those set forth in the Examiner’s Answer, these arguments do not identify a reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 31. Claims 17 and 21 For the rejection of claim 17, the Appellant asserts that the only embodiment disclosed by Long as useful for addressing plasma asymmetry due to a chamber passageway is Figure 3b, and, therefore, Long teaches its other embodiments are unsuitable for this purpose. Id. 16—17. As discussed above, Long’s teachings regarding the control of power, frequency, phase angle, and waveform of RF power supplied to individual sub-electrodes to adjust field uniformity and affect plasma density are not limited to the 8 Appeal 2017-006851 Application 13/732,203 embodiment depicted in Figure 2b. Long H 11, 27, 42, 44. Instead, Long’s teachings as a whole, including the embodiment of Figure 3b in which the geometry and arrangement of sub-electrodes are also changed, would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art device in the manner claimed. The Appellant further contends Long demonstrates that the adjustment of RF power supplied to sub-electrodes is too complex and unpredictable to provide a solution without undue experimentation and that the additional references, such as Welch, do not cure this deficiency. Appeal Br. 17—20. This argument is also unpersuasive. The Appellant cites portions of Long’s disclosure to support this argument, including paragraph 43. But as the Examiner states, the portions cited by the Appellant to support this argument (e.g., paragraph 43) regard Long’s discussion of other prior art, not the embodiments of Long. Ans. 20—21. Indeed, Long states in paragraph 44: “[t]he partition of a plasma electrode into sub-electrodes brings along some properties which have not been considered in the prior art.” For its inventive embodiments, Long discloses controlling the power, frequency, phase angle, and waveform of RF power supplied to individual sub electrodes and changing the arrangement of sub-electrodes to adjust field uniformity and plasma density. Long H 11, 27, 42, 44-46. In view of the above, the Appellant’s arguments do not identify a reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17. The Appellant does not argue claim 21 separately from claim 17. Appeal Br. 20. For these reasons and those discussed in the Examiner’s Answer, we uphold the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 17, 21, 26, and 31 over Long in view of Welch. 9 Appeal 2017-006851 Application 13/732,203 Rejections B and C For rejections B and C, the Appellant essentially contends the additional references applied in rejections B and C do not remedy the deficiencies argued above with respect to claims 17, 26, and 31. Appeal Br. 20—21. For the reasons set forth above, there are no deficiencies that require curing by the additional references applied in rejections B and C. Therefore we uphold rejections B and C. IV. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 17, 21—26, 29, 31, and 32 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 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation