Ex Parte KUDELA et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 27, 2019

13764832 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/764,832 02/12/2013 Jozef KUDELA
44257 7590 03/29/2019
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.
16222US/DISPLA Y/AHRDWR/ES 2696
EXAMINER
DHINGRA, RAKESH KUMAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2019 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 JOZEF KUDELA, SUHAIL ANWAR, CARL A. SORENSEN,
DOUGLAS TRUONG, and JOHN M. WHITE
Appeal2017-006675
Application 13/764,832
Technology Center 1700
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
May 31, 2016 decision rejecting claims 1-20 ("Non-Final Act."). 2 We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Applied Materials, Inc. is the Appellant and is identified as the real party in
interest (Appeal Br. 3).
2 Following a September 24, 2015 Final Action, Appellant appealed and
filed an Appeal Brief. In response, the Examiner reopened prosecution and
set forth the rejections explained in the May 31, 2016 Non-Final Action. We
presume that the Examiner withdrew the rejections identified in the
September 24, 2015 Final Action and that the only rejections on appeal are
those set forth in the May 31, 2016 Non-Final Action.
Appeal2017-006675
Application 13/764,832
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the application on appeal relates to a linear
PECVD (plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition) apparatus (Abstract).
PECVD is a CVD process in which a plasma is ignited in the chamber to
enhance the reaction between the chemical precursors (Spec. ,r 3). The
apparatus is said to be designed to process two substrates simultaneously
using common plasma and gas sources (Abstract). Each of the independent
claims recites a ratio of the distance between component parts of the claimed
apparatus. Details of the claimed invention are shown in independent claims
1, 13, and 19, which is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the
Appeal Brief ( emphasis added):
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a chamber body;
one or more substrate supports disposed within the
chamber body;
a plurality of plasma sources located within the chamber
body opposite the one or more substrate supports; and
a plurality of gas introduction tubes disposed within the
chamber body between the plurality of plasma sources and the
one or more substrate supports, the plurality of plasma sources
are spaced from the one or more substrate supports by a
distance that is between about 1. 3 to about 3 times the distance
between adjacent gas introduction tubes of the plurality of gas
introduction tubes.
13. An apparatus, comprising:
a chamber body;
one or more substrate supports disposed within the
chamber body;
a plurality of plasma sources located within the chamber
body opposite the one or more substrate supports; and
2
Appeal2017-006675
Application 13/764,832
a plurality of gas introduction tubes disposed within the
chamber body between the plurality of plasma sources and the
one or more substrate supports, the plurality of gas introduction
tubes are spaced from the one or more substrate supports by
about 0.2 times the distance between adjacent plasma sources.
19. An apparatus, comprising:
a chamber body;
one or more substrate supports disposed within the
chamber body;
a plurality of plasma sources located within the chamber
body between the one or more substrate supports; and
a plurality of gas introduction tubes disposed within the
chamber body between the plurality of plasma sources and the
one or more substrate supports, the distance between adjacent
plasma sources is between about 2 and about 4 times the
distance between adjacent gas instruction tubes.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1-5, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Chen, 3 or alternatively, Ohmi 4 in view of Chen.
II. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Chen, or alternatively Ohmi in view of Chen, and further in view of
Mabuchi. 5
III. Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Chen, or alternatively Ohmi in view of Chen, in view of
Mabuchi, and further in view of Ueda. 6
3 Chen et al., US 2012/0145325 Al, published June 14, 2012.
4 Ohmi et al., US 2004/0221809 Al, published November 11, 2004.
5 Mabuchi et al., US 5,645,644, issued July 8, 1997.
6 Ueda et al., US 2006/0011231 Al, published January 19, 2006.
3
Appeal2017-006675
Application 13/764,832
IV. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chen, or alternatively Ohmi in view of Chen, and further
in view of Ueda.
V. Claim 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chen, or alternatively Ohmi in view of Chen, in view of
Ueda and further in view of Ohmi.
VI. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Chen, or alternatively Ohmi in view of Chen, and further in view of
Mabuchi.
VII. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Chen, or alternatively Ohmi in view of Chen, further in view of
Mabuchi, and further in view of Ueda and Ohmi.
DISCUSSION
Appellant does not make separate substantive arguments in support of
any individual claims. Accordingly, we focus our discussion on the
rejection of claim 1. The discussion is equally applicable to each of the
independent claims on appeal.
The Examiner finds, and Appellants do not dispute, that Chen and
Ohmi each disclose the basic structure as set forth in claim 1, but do not
explicitly teach the plurality of plasma sources are spaced from the one or
more substrate supports by a distance that is between about 1.3 to about 3
times the distance between adjacent gas introduction tubes of the plurality of
gas introduction tubes (Non-Final Act. 4--5). The Examiner finds (Non-
Final Act. 5-6, citing Chen FIGS. 1 and 2, ,r 22) that Chen teaches that sizes,
positions, and number of gas apertures 132 can be determined after the sizes
and relative positions of the substrate 50, the chamber 110, and the electrode
4
Appeal2017-006675
Application 13/764,832
set 120 so as to obtain a good fabrication yield:
·- ·-··············· --·· 1t2. ........ -------············· 50
[ f~f f +...::::=f=r------t=~,e--- 1:}\"l
""''"········J:!2
@@@@@@@@·-··"'
- 120
-· 110
-----···························································-----~
FIG. 1
FIG. 2
Chen's FIG. 1 is a partial three-dimensional view of a plasma apparatus
according to an exemplary embodiment of Chen's disclosure. Chen's FIG. 2
is a cross-sectional view of a plasma apparatus according to an exemplary
embodiment of Chen's disclosure.
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to optimize
the locations of the gas apertures (including the distance between adjacent
gas introduction tubes) with respect to spacing between the plurality of
plasma sources and the substrate support to enable plasma uniformity for
large substrates and obtain improved fabrication yield.
Appellant argues that it would not have been "obvious to optimize the
locations of the gas apertures with respect to the spacing between the
plurality of plasma sources and the one or more substrate supports in view of
the references teachings" (Appeal Br. 13). Appellant's argument, as set
forth in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief, is not persuasive.
The discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable is
ordinarily within the skill of the art. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276
(CCPA 1980); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456 (CCPA 1955). The prior art
5
Appeal2017-006675
Application 13/764,832
need not provide the exact method of optimization for the variable to be
result-effective. In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed.
Cir. 2012). A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the
variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective (id.).
In this instance, Chen teaches that "sizes, positions, and a number of
the gas apertures can be determined after the sizes and relative positions of
the substrate, the chamber and the electrode set are determined, so as to
obtain a good fabrication yield" (Chen, ,r 22, references numerals omitted).
Thus, Chen explicitly states that the position of the gas apertures relative to
the positions of other elements in the apparatus can affect the fabrication
yield. This is sufficient to establish that the claimed ratios in each of the
independent claims is an art-recognized result effective variable. Applied
Materials, 692 F.2d at 1297. This, in tum, is sufficient to support the
obviousness rejections. Appellant has not provided any explanation or
argument as to why the claimed ratios provide any benefit, much less
unexpectedly good benefits
Appellant also argues that there is not enough information in the cited
art to have allowed a person of skill in the art to optimize the claimed ratios
(Reply Br. 2-3). However, as explained by the Examiner and noted above,
Chen discloses that the positions of the various components can be adjusted
(i.e. optimized) to achieve a good fabrication yield. This would suggest to a
person of skill in the art that these parameters can be optimized to achieve a
good result. This is sufficient to support the obviousness rejection,
particularly in the absence of any explanation as to what advantages the
claimed ratios provide, and in the absence of any evidence of the criticality
of the claimed ratios.
6
Appeal2017-006675
Application 13/764,832
CONCLUSIONS
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-5, 13, and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chen, or alternatively, Ohmi in
view of Chen.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chen, or alternatively Ohmi in view of Chen, and further
in view of Mabuchi.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 7-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chen, or alternatively Ohmi in view of Chen, in view of
Mabuchi, and further in view of Ueda.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Chen, or alternatively Ohmi in view of Chen, and further
in view of Ueda.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Chen, or alternatively Ohmi in view of Chen, in view of
Ueda and further in view of Ohmi.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chen, or alternatively Ohmi in view of Chen, and further
in view of Mabuchi.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chen, or alternatively Ohmi in view of Chen, further in
view ofMabuchi, and further in view of Ueda and Ohmi.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
7
Appeal2017-006675
Application 13/764,832
AFFIRMED
8