Ex Parte Lu et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 28, 201913301501 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/301,501 11/21/2011 43859 7590 07/02/2019 SLATER MATSIL, LLP/TSMC 17950 PRESTON ROAD, SUITE 1000 DALLAS, TX 75252 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Chang-Shen Lu 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. TSMll-0628 1833 EXAMINER HERZFELD, NATHANIEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3762 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/02/2019 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): docketing@slatermatsil.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHANG-SHEN LU, TZE-LIANG LEE, YI-HUNG LIN, TAI-CHUN HUANG, PANG-YEN TSAI, and JR-HUNG LI Appeal2018-008859 Application 13/301,501 1 Technology Center 3700 Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges. STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE- Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision in the Final Office Action (dated Nov. 1, 2017, hereinafter "Final Act.") rejecting claims 1, 4---6, 8, 21, 24--31, 33, and 34. 2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). 1 Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company is identified as the real party in interest in Appellants' Appeal Brief (filed May 4, 2018, hereinafter "Appeal Br."). Appeal Br. 2. 2 Claims 2, 3, 7, 9--20, 22, 23, and 32 are canceled. See Appeal Br. 16, 17, and 19 (Claims App.). Appeal2018-008859 Application 13/301,501 We AFFIRM. SUMMARY OF DECISION INVENTION Appellants' invention is related to a "wafer temperature control apparatus." Spec. para. 11. Claims 1, 21, and 2 7 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. An apparatus comprising: a heated structure in an epitaxial growth chamber, wherein the heated structure is configured to support a wafer; a first temperature sensor configured to generate a first temperature signal proportional to a first infrared radiation emitted from a center portion of a backside of the heated structure, wherein the first temperature sensor and the heated structure are separated by a dome of the epitaxial growth chamber; a second temperature sensor configured to generate a second temperature signal proportional to a second infrared radiation emitted from an interface between the backside of the heated structure and a sidewall of the heated structure, wherein the second temperature sensor and the heated structure are separated by the dome of the epitaxial growth chamber and the second temperature sensor is placed below the heated structure; and a first heating source adjacent to the heated structure, wherein the first heating source is configured to heat a center portion of the wafer; a second heating source adjacent to the heated structure, wherein the second heating source is configured to heat an outer portion of the wafer; and a controller configured to determine a heating value of the first heating source by a temperature distribution from the sidewall of the heated structure to the center portion of the backside of the heated structure, and wherein the temperature 2 Appeal2018-008859 Application 13/301,501 distribution is generated from a model-based correlation between an actual temperature value of the wafer from a temperature calibration process and measured temperature values from the first temperature sensor and the second temperature sensor, and wherein the measured temperature values are the first temperature signal indicating the first infrared radiation emitted from the center portion of the backside of the heated structure, and the second temperature signal indicating the second infrared radiation emitted from the interface between the backside of the heated structure and the sidewall of the heated structure, respectively. REJECTIONS I. The Examiner rejects claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. II. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4--6, 8, 21, 24--31, 33, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Mailho et al. (US 6,436,796 Bl, iss. Aug. 20, 2002, hereinafter "Mailho") and de Waard et al. (US 6,373,033 Bl, iss. Apr. 16, 2002, hereinafter "de Waard"). ANALYSIS The Indefiniteness Rejection Appellants do not address the indefiniteness rejection of claim 6. See Appeal Br. 8-13. Accordingly, Appellants have waived any argument of error, and we summarily sustain the rejection of this claim. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that summary affirmance without consideration of the substantive merits is appropriate where an appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection). 3 Appeal2018-008859 Application 13/301,501 The Obviousness Rejection Claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 3 3 Appellants have not presented arguments for the patentability of claims 4--6, 8, and 33 apart from claim 1. Therefore, in accordance with 37 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv), we select claim 1 as the representative claim to decide the appeal of the rejection of these claims, with claims 4--6, 8, and 33 standing or falling with claim 1. The Examiner finds that Mailho discloses an apparatus including, inter alia, heated susceptor 104 for supporting wafer 105, first temperature sensor 126 for measuring a temperature of a center portion of a backside of susceptor 104, second temperature sensor 128, 134 for measuring a temperature of an interface between the backside of susceptor 104 and a sidewall of susceptor 104, and first heating source 107 having multiple heat sources located adjacent and underneath susceptor 104. Final Act. 3--4 (citing Mailho, col. 5, 11. 29-36, col. 6, 11. 30-36, Fig. 1). The Examiner further finds Mailho discloses controlling the multiple heat sources of first heating source 107 to generate a temperature distribution profile of susceptor 104 such that "a temperature of the center portion of the wafer [105] is substantially equal to a temperature of the outer portion of the wafer [105]." Id. at 4--5 (citing Mailho, col. 6, 11. 30-36). However, the Examiner finds that Mailho fails to disclose determining a heating value (level) of first heating source 107 based on a temperature distribution of susceptor 104 generated from a model-based correlation between actual temperature values from an actual calibration process and measured temperature values from first temperature sensor 126 and second temperature sensor 128, 134. Id. 5---6. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that 4 Appeal2018-008859 Application 13/301,501 de Waard teaches determining a heating value of first heating source 34 and second heating source 40 based on a temperature distribution of susceptor 24 generated from a model-based correlation between actual temperature values from an actual calibration process and measured temperature values from a plurality of temperature sensors (thermocouples 44, 46, 48, and 50) to ultimately estimate the temperature of a wafer. Id. 6-7 (citing de Waard, col. 19, 11. 7-26, col. 24, 11. 1-7, concludes that Figs. 4, 5). Thus, the Examiner It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Mailho with the teachings of de Waard to include generating a temperature distribution from a model-based correlation between a temperature from a calibration process and a measured temperature to determine a heating value of the heating sources in order to properly regulate the heating sources of the device to obtain a uniform temperature distribution across the substrate. Id. at 7-8. Appellants argue that "de Waard's disclosure is exclusively directed to modelling [a] wafer temperature based on emissions from the frontside of a susceptor" and switching to modelling based on emissions from the backside of the susceptor, as Mailho discloses, "would change the principle of operation of de Waard" and "would render de Waard unsatisfactory for its intended purpose." Appeal Br. 11-12, Appellant's Reply Brief 2-3 (filed Sept. 13, 2018, hereinafter "Reply Br."). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments as they evidence what we believe to be an unreasonably narrow reading or interpretation of the de Waard disclosure. More specifically, de Waard discloses temperature 5 Appeal2018-008859 Application 13/301,501 sensors 44, 46, 48, 50 "imbedded in" susceptor 24 to measure temperature at predetermined positions. de Waard col. 7, 11. 40-42. de Waard further discloses the use of an "instrumented wafer" having temperature sensors mounted thereon for measuring actual wafer surface temperatures, which are then employed to obtain modelling coefficients that are ultimately used to estimate wafer temperatures. Id. col. 45, 11. 31--40. As such, because de Waard's temperature sensors 44, 46, 48, and 50 are disclosed as "imbedded in" susceptor 24, we do not agree with Appellants' finding that "de Waard teaches modelling wafer temperature based on emissions from the frontside of a susceptor." Appeal Br. 11 ( emphasis added). Rather, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art of wafer processing, would readily understand from de Waard's disclosure that the location of temperature sensors 44, 46, 48, and 50 with respect to susceptor 24 is not "critical" to its model. In other words, whether de Waard's temperature sensors 44, 46, 48, and 50 are imbedded on the frontside or the backside of susceptor 24 is not a critical feature, as long as they are "imbedded in" susceptor 24. Such an interpretation is also consistent with Appellants' Specification, which states that although "Figure 1 shows the location of the pyrometers, the pyrometer configuration [on the backside of susceptor 146] shown in Figure 1 is merely an example." Spec. para. 18 ( emphasis added). Hence, a skilled artisan would have appreciated that positioning (imbedding) temperature sensors at the backside or the frontside of an "instrumented wafer" in the device of Mailho, as modified by Waard, would have resulted in determining modelling coefficients for estimating a wafer temperature based equally on emissions from the backside or the frontside, 6 Appeal2018-008859 Application 13/301,501 respectively, ofMailho's susceptor 104. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 ( CCP A 1962) ( explaining that an artisan must be presumed to know something about the art apart from what the references disclose). In other words, the Examiner is correct that with temperature sensors "placed at the backside of the susceptor" 104 of Mailho, as modified by de Waard, the model of de Waard would generate modelling coefficients for estimating temperature of wafer 105 based on emissions from the backside of susceptor 104. See Examiner's Answer (dated July 13, 2018, hereinafter "Ans.") 9. As such, for the foregoing reasons, we do not agree with Appellants that "the Examiner's assertion amounts to nothing more than conjecture." Reply Br. 3. In conclusion, we sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claim 1 as unpatentable over Mailho and de Waard. Claims 4-- 6, 8, and 33 fall with claim 1. Claims 21, 24-31, and 34 Appellants' remarks with respect to the rejection of independent claims 21 and 27 merely recite claim limitations and vaguely assert that these limitations are not taught or suggested by the applied references. See Appeal Br. 12-13. These statements do not constitute separate arguments for patentability of the claims pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the Board had reasonab 1 y interpreted 3 7 C. F. R. § 41. 3 7 ( c) (1) (vii) as requiring "more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not 7 Appeal2018-008859 Application 13/301,501 found in the prior art"). Appellants have waived any argument for separate patentability of these claims. See id. Accordingly, we also sustain the rejection of independent claims 21 and 27, and their respective dependent claims 24--26, 28-31, and 34, as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Mailho and de Waard. SUMMARY The Examiner's decision to reject claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is affirmed. The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 4--6, 8, 21, 24--31, 33, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a)( 1 )(iv). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation