Ex Parte Lu et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 28, 2019

13301501 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2019)

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