Ex Parte Kurita et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 13, 2013

11926720 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2013)

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.
11/926,720 10/29/2007 Shinichi Kurita 004946D3/DISPLAY/AHRDWR 4919
7590 06/14/2013
Patent Counsel, MS/2061
Legal Affairs Dept.
Applied Materials, Inc.
PO Box 450A
Santa Clara, CA 95052
EXAMINER
LOWE, MICHAEL S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3652
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/14/2013 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 SHINICHI KURITA and WENDELL T. BLONIGAN
____________________

Appeal 2011-003898
Application 11/926,720
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and
CARL M. DeFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-003898
Application 11/926,720

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Shinichi Kurita and Wendell T. Blonigan (Appellants) appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-17.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

THE INVENTION
Claims 1 and 9 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
representative of the appealed subject matter and reads:
1. A load lock chamber comprising:
a body having two isolated load lock regions
that are vertically stacked and separated by a
shared common wall that is fixed within the body,
wherein each isolated load lock region comprises
two substrate slots; and
two substrate temperature regulating devices
disposed in the two isolated load lock regions for
vertical movement within each of the two isolated
load lock regions.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tabrizi (US 6,315,512 B1; iss. Nov. 13, 2001) and Muka
(US 5,588,827; iss. Dec. 31, 1996).
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Tabrizi, Muka, and Toshima (US 4,785,962; iss. Nov. 22, 1988).

Appeal 2011-003898
Application 11/926,720

3
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-17 - Tabrizi and Muka
The Examiner found that Tabrizi discloses two load lock regions
(upper load lock 406a, lower load lock 406b), each comprising two substrate
slots (doors 420a, 420b, 418a, 418b; shelves 416a, 416b). Ans. 3 (see also
Tabrizi, col. 6, ll. 23-27, 53-54, 58-59; col. 7, ll. 2-4; fig. 4). The Examiner
also found that “Tabrizi teaches (column 4) heating and cooling of substrates
through each of the substrate plates (416) which may be removed
(movable).” Id. at 4.
Appellants contend that Tabrizi does not teach that shelves 416a, 416b
are “movable.” Br. 9. In response, the Examiner stated “Tabrizi (column 6)
states that the shelves may be removed (thus movable) and replaced with a
cassette like holder (with shelves).” Ans. 5. We understand, as do
Appellants, that the Examiner referred to the following description in
Tabrizi:
The load locks contain one or more shelves 416a
and 416b to hold workpieces. The shelves may be
cooled to provide a cooling station for workpieces
after processing. In alternate embodiments, a
cassette-like holder may be loaded into the load
lock rather than providing a shelf or shelves in the
load lock.
Tabrizi, col. 6, ll. 53-58 (emphasis added); see Br. 9.
We agree with Appellants that Tabrizi does not disclose that shelves
416a, 416b are “removable” or “movable,” or can be removed and replaced
with a cassette like holder. Rather, Tabrizi discloses that a cassette-like
holder may be used rather than a shelf or shelves in alternative
Appeal 2011-003898
Application 11/926,720

4
embodiments of the load lock. Thus, we agree with Appellants that Tabrizi
alone does not disclose “two substrate temperature regulating devices
disposed in the two isolated load lock regions for vertical movement within
each of the two isolated load lock regions (emphasis added),” as recited in
claim 1. See Br. 9.
Tabrizi further discloses that “[w]orkpiece temperature could be
controlled through thermal contact with the shelves which may be heated or
cooled by gaseous conduction and radiation. Gases might also be directed
over the workpieces, prior to or after processing, to achieve desired
temperatures.” See Tabrizi, col. 4, ll. 14-18. The Examiner found that
“Muka teaches a movably disposed (generally column 2, lines 39-43)
heating and cooling system (generally Fig. 1; column 2, lines 46-48) in a
chamber (generally proximate 22) for the wafer.” Ans. 4. The Examiner
concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to modify Tabrizi in view of Muka “to have the movable temperature
regulation device for each substrate (shelf)” to increase the efficiency of a
substrate handling system, increase versatility, and reduce contamination.
Id.
Appellants contend that it would not have been obvious to modify the
cooled shelves 416a, 416b of Tabrizi with Muka’s movable plate 22. Br. 10.
First, Appellants contend that Tabrizi teaches a system with stacked load
lock chambers for transferring substrates without mechanisms that are
complicated or expensive, or occupy a relatively large amount of space. Br.
10 (citing Tabrizi, col. 3, ll. 4-15). Appellants contend that modifying
Tabrizi’s system with Muka’s multiple-component, movable plate
Appeal 2011-003898
Application 11/926,720

5
configuration would require significant space expansion, and also introduce
complicated and expensive mechanisms to Tabrizi’s system. Id. at 10-11.
The Examiner disagreed that the combination of Tabrizi and Muka
would be overly large or complex. Ans. 6. As noted supra, the Examiner’s
modification of Tabrizi’s system would incorporate Muka’s “movable
temperature regulation device” for each shelf. In this regard, Muka discloses
a substrate thermal conditioning apparatus including a top plate 22, bottom
plate 24, vertical drive mechanism 36, and heat transfer plate 32. See Muka,
col. 2, ll. 31-47; fig. 1. The top plate 22 is moved toward and away from
heat transfer plate 32 by the vertical drive mechanism 36. See id. at col. 2,
ll. 39-47. We agree with Appellants that Muka’s movable plate mechanism
includes components in addition to the top plate 22 that would also appear to
be required in Tabrizi’s modified system. Br. 10. Particularly, these other
components include the columns 26, 27, bottom plate 24, and drive
mechanism 36. Id.; see also Muka, fig. 1. We also agree with Appellants
that the modification of Tabrizi would appear to require additional space and
increase the system’s complexity.
The Examiner also stated that the modification of Tabrizi would
provide benefits for situations “where gas or direct heating and cooling are
impractical with minimal change in complexity and size.” Ans. 6. We
understand the Examiner’s reasoning is that the modified Tabrizi system
would not utilize “gas or direct heating and cooling” in such situations.
Muka discloses that the top plate 22 may contain a heater or cooler. See
Muka, col. 2, ll. 47-48. Muka also teaches that the substrate is heated and
cooled by gas conduction. Particularly, Muka discloses that the top plate 22
Appeal 2011-003898
Application 11/926,720

6
is lowered by the drive mechanism 36 to move substrate S into contact with
standoffs 41 provided on the heat transfer plate 32. See id. at col. 3, ll. 24-
28. When the heat transfer plate 32 is heated, it transfers heat to substrate S
by gas conduction. See id. at col. 2, ll. 36-39. When heat transfer plate 32 is
cooled, heat is transferred from substrate S directly to the heat transfer plate
32 by gas conduction. See id. at col. 2, ll. 57-60. Accordingly, the
Examiner did not adequately explain what “benefits” would be provided by
modifying Tabrizi in light of Muka’s teaching that the substrates are heated
using gas heating and direct heating.
Second, Appellants contend that Muka’s configuration could not be
added to Tabrizi’s stacked load lock configuration without adding significant
space between the stacked chambers to accommodate Muka’s bottom plate
and drive mechanism below the upper chamber. Br. 11. Appellants contend
that adding this space between Tabrizi’s load lock chambers would not meet
the claim language because the stacked chambers of the combination “would
not be able to have a shared common wall that separate[s] the isolated load
lock regions.” Id.
In response, the Examiner stated that “a shared wall is still a shared
wall regardless of the type of material or contents of the wall.” Ans. 6. The
Examiner did not adequately explain how Tabrizi’s system would be
modified to incorporate Muka’s “movable temperature regulation device”
for each shelf of upper load lock 406a and lower load lock 406b, and did not
adequately address Appellants’ explanation why the modified Tabrizi
system would not meet the claim limitation of “two isolated load lock
Appeal 2011-003898
Application 11/926,720

7
regions that are vertically stacked and separated by a shared common wall
(emphasis added).” Br. 11.
In view of the above, we determine that the Examiner did not
articulate adequate reasoning with rational underpinning as to why it would
have been obvious to modify Tabrizi’s system in view of Muka to result in
the claimed load lock chamber. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-5, 7, and 8.
Claim 9 is directed to a load lock chamber comprising, inter alia, “a
lower isolated load lock region formed within the body that shares a
common wall with the upper isolated load lock region,” “a first substrate
temperature regulating device disposed in the upper isolated load lock region
for vertical movement,” and “a second substrate temperature regulating
device disposed in the lower isolated load lock region for vertical
movement.” The Examiner’s findings and conclusions (Ans. 3-6) and
Appellants’ contentions are similar to those discussed supra in regard to
claim 1. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 9 and its dependent
claims 10, 11, and 13-17.

Claims 6 and 12 - Tabrizi, Muka, and Toshima
The Examiner’s application of Toshima to the rejection of dependent
claims 6 and 12 (Ans. 5) does not cure the deficiencies of the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 9, as discussed supra. Thus, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 6 and 12.

Appeal 2011-003898
Application 11/926,720

8
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-17 is reversed.

REVERSED

rvb