Ex Parte Morita et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 22, 2013

11392768 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NAOTOSHI MORITA and RYOSUKE KAMEYAMA
____________

Appeal 2010-005475
Application 11/392,768
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
GAY ANN SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Naotoshi Morita and Ryosuke Kameyama (Appellants) seek our
review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-11 and
14-17. Appellants cancelled claims 12 and 13. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

Appeal 2010-005475
Application 11/392,768

2
The Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed subject matter relates to “an electrostatic chuck which is
useful, for example, in fixing, flatness correction and transporting a
semiconductor wafer in an apparatus adapted for fabricating a
semiconductor wafer, such as an etching apparatus, an ion implanter, or an
electron beams exposing apparatus.” Spec. 1, para. [01]. Claims 1 and 3 are
independent and claim 3, reproduced below, with emphasis added, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
3. An electrostatic chuck comprising:
a metal base having at least one through hole;
a ceramic body covering said through hole;
a suction electrode provided in said ceramic
body; and
a heating element provided in said ceramic
body,
wherein said heating element is not present in
a projection region of each of said at least one
through hole defined by projecting said through hole
toward said ceramic body and wherein
a lower surface of said ceramic body covers
said at least one through hole and said ceramic body
comprises:
a concave portion formed in the lower surface
of said ceramic body and in communication with said
at least one though hole of said metal base, wherein
an upper end of said concave portion is at a position
that is lower than that of the heating element;
a metallization layer formed in said concave
portion;
a conductive pattern connected to said
metallization layer, and
a via penetrating through a portion of said
ceramic body and connecting said heating element
and said conductive pattern.
Appeal 2010-005475
Application 11/392,768

3
The Rejections
The following Examiner’s rejections, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), are
before us for review:
I. claims 3, 9, 15, and 17 as unpatentable over Kanno ʼ617 (US
6,825,617 B2, issued Nov. 30, 2004) and Okajima ʼ537 (US 2003/0075537
A1, published Apr. 24, 2003), as evidenced by Kanno ʼ233 (US 6,646,233
B2, issued Nov. 11, 2003);
II. claim 15 as unpatentable over Kanno ʼ617, Okajima ʼ537, and
Logan (US 5,191,506, issued Mar. 2, 1993), as evidenced by Kanno ʼ233;
III. claim 11 as unpatentable over Kanno ʼ617, Okajima ʼ537, and
Matsuda (US 2005/0152089 A1, published Jul. 14, 2005), as evidenced by
Kanno ʼ233;
IV. claims 1, 4-8, 14, and 16 as unpatentable over Kanno ʼ617,
Okajima ʼ537, and Okajima ʼ308 (US 2004/0108308 A1, published Jun. 10,
2004), as evidenced by Kanno ʼ233;
V. claims 16 as unpatentable over Kanno ʼ617, Okajima ʼ537,
Okajima ʼ308, and Logan, as evidenced by Kanno ʼ233; and
VI. claims 2 and 10 as unpatentable over Kanno ʼ617, Okajima
ʼ537, Okajima ʼ308, and Matsuda, as evidenced by Kanno ʼ233.

OPINION
Rejection I – Obviousness based on
Kanno ʼ617 and Okajima ʼ537, as evidenced by Kanno ʼ233
The Examiner finds that Kanno ʼ617 as evidenced by Kanno ʼ233
substantially discloses the subject matter of independent claim 3, but fails to
“teach the heating element not being present in a projection region defined
by the through hole for the heating elements.” Ans. 4-6. The Examiner also
Appeal 2010-005475
Application 11/392,768

4
finds the “providing a projection region in which a heating element is not
present . . . is known in the art” as evidenced by, for example, Okajima ʼ537
which teaches “the terminals (6B) being provided in orifices within the
structure (2) with the heating elements (3) not being present in a projection
region defined by extending the orifices towards the substrate (2),” and “the
advantage of providing a heating element in a different plane for other
heating elements prevents cold spots on the mounting face.” Ans. 7. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to modify Kanno ʼ617 as evidenced by Kanno ʼ233 so that the
heating element is not present in a projection region of the at least one
through hole as taught by Okajima ʼ537 “in order to prevent cold spots on
the mounting face, thereby increasing the overall temperature uniformity of
the ceramic plate.” Id.
Appellants note that the Examiner applied Figures 1, 4, and 6 of
Okajima ʼ537. App. Br. 16. Okajima ʼ537’s Figure 6 depicts heating
apparatus 10B in cross-sectional view taken along line VI-VI of Figure 4,
wherein disk-shaped substrate 2 is supported on hollow supporting member
11. Okajima ʼ537, paras. [0024], [0028], [0064], [0073], [0074] and Figs. 4
and 6. Appellant argues that “[i]f the inner space 12 of Okajima [ʼ]537 is
regarded as the claimed through hole, the second heating element 4 is
present in a projection region of inner space 12, which is different from the
claimed invention.” App. Br. 17.
The Examiner responds that Okajima ʼ537 “teaches the terminals (6B)
being provided in orifices/sockets/connections within the substrate (2) with
the heating element (3) not being present in a projection region defined by
extending the orifices towards the substrate (2) of that particular heating
Appeal 2010-005475
Application 11/392,768

5
element.” Ans. 19-10. Emphasis omitted. The Examiner notes that since
the heating element 3 of Okajima ʼ537 is not “near the orifice/sockets/
connections within the substrate (2), the heating element clearly and
explicitly is not present in a projection region of the through hole (i.e.[,]
orifices/sockets/connections within the substrate 2) toward the ceramic body
or alumina nitride substrate (2).” Ans. 20. Emphasis omitted.
Appellants reply that claim 3 requires the at least one through hole in
the metal base to define the projection region and thus, Appellant argues that
the Examiner’s use of Okajima ʼ537’s “orifices/sockets/connections within
the substrate 2” to define the projection region does not satisfy the language
of claim 3. Reply Br. 10.
As Appellants correctly point out, the only through hole in Okajima
ʼ537’s base (supporting member 11) is inner space 12. Id. If Okajima
ʼ537’s through hole (inner space 12) is projected toward the ceramic body
(substrate 2) to define a projection region in accordance with the language of
claim 3, then portions of second heating element 4 are located within the
projection region so that Okajima ʼ537 does not satisfy claim 3’s
requirement that the heating element not be present in the projection region.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 3, and claims 9, 15, and 17 dependent thereon, under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kanno ʼ617 and Okajima ʼ537, as
evidenced by Kanno ʼ233.
Rejections II and III – Obviousness based on Kanno ʼ617,
Okajima ʼ537, and Logan, as evidenced by Kanno ʼ233, and Kanno ʼ617,
Okajima ʼ537, and Matsuda, as evidenced by Kanno ʼ233, respectively
Because the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 as unpatentable over
Kanno ʼ617, Okajima ʼ537, and Logan, as evidenced by Kanno ʼ233, and the
Appeal 2010-005475
Application 11/392,768

6
Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 as unpatentable over Kanno ʼ617, Okajima
ʼ537, and Matsuda, as evidenced by Kanno ʼ233, both rely upon the
erroneous finding that Okajima ʼ537 discloses that “said heating element is
not present in a projection region of each of said at least one through hole,”
we do not sustain these rejections for the same reasons as discussed supra
with respect to independent claim 3.
Rejection IV – Obviousness based on Kanno ʼ617,
Okajima ʼ537, and Okajima ʼ308, as evidenced by Kanno ʼ233
Independent claim 1 is directed to an electrostatic chuck including,
inter alia, that:
a heating value per unit area in a projection region of each of
said at least one through hole is 50% or less of a heating value
per unit area in an outer region, wherein said projection
region is a region defined by projecting said through hole
toward said ceramic body, and said outer region is a region
determined by magnifying said projection region at a similarity
ratio of three while setting an areal center of gravity of said
projection region as a center of similarity, but excluding an
interior of said projection region.

The Examiner finds that the combination of Kanno ʼ617 and Okajima
ʼ537, as evidenced by Kanno ʼ233, substantially discloses the subject matter
of independent claim 1, except for the above-quoted limitation which the
Examiner finds to be well known in the art as exemplified by Okajima ʼ308.
Ans. 10. The Examiner also finds that Okajima ʼ308 discloses a ceramic
plate having heating surface for heating an object to be heated with the
surface having through holes 6, 34, wherein the through holes either
penetrate the heating surface in a vertical direction or have a depth in the
heating surface. Ans. 10-11 (citing Okajima ʼ308, p. 2, para. [0028]). The
Appeal 2010-005475
Application 11/392,768

7
Examiner specifically points to Okajima ʼ308’s Figure 10 as depicting a
wiring pattern of heating elements 37e-37g for each through hole/projection
34, wherein multiple rows of wiring parts having curved portions for
avoiding the holes and becoming sequentially larger as the avoidance parts
45-47 move away from the holes 34 so that the heat amount in the avoidance
parts is made to be the same as that of their surroundings in order for a hot
spot to never occur to improve thermal uniformity. Ans. 11. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to modify the heater/hole relationship of the electrostatic chuck of Kanno
ʼ617 and Okajima ʼ537, as evidenced by Kanno ʼ233, with the heating
element avoidance part configuration around the holes to provide the heat
amount in the avoidance parts being made to be [the] same as that of their
surroundings in order that a hotspot never occurs, and with the U-shaped
convex side facing heating elements to also prevent the generation of cold
spots to improve the overall thermal uniformity of the entire plate. Ans. 11-
12.
Appellants argue that Okajima ʼ308 “is silent with respect to a
ceramic plate with a metal base,” does not address the “problem of local
temperature rise of a ceramic base in the projection area of a through hole in
the metal base,” and “does not show a concave portion in a plate having an
upper end that is lower than the heating element, wherein the concave
portion communicates with a through hole in the base.” App. Br. 23.
Appellants also argue that Okajima ʼ308 “provides no teaching as to the
desirability of avoiding projection areas of through holes in the base where a
portion of the ceramic body in the projection region would not contact the
metal base.” Id.
Appeal 2010-005475
Application 11/392,768

8
We understand the Examiner to be saying that because the hole 6 or
34 having a depth in Okajima ʼ308’s ceramic plate 32 could be projected
upwardly onto the remainder of the plate thereabove to form a projection
region, the heat transfer properties of the structure of Okajima ʼ308 are
thermally equivalent to Appellants’ ceramic plate/metal base with through
hole. As such, according to the Examiner, “Kanno et al. ʼ617 as evidenced
by Kanno et al. ʼ233, and in view of Okajima et al. ʼ537 in view of Okajima
ʼ308 would have a heating value per unit area in a projection region being
50% or less of a heating value per unit area in an outer region.” Ans. 29.
We understand Appellants to be arguing that because Okajima ʼ308’s plate
32 only consists of a single material, i.e., ceramic, instead of ceramic on top
of a metal base as in the present invention, Okajima ʼ308’s heater 31 is not
“thermally” equivalent to the present invention from a heat transfer
standpoint. Appellants have the better argument here because we do not
agree that Okajima ʼ308’s heater is “thermally” equivalent to Appellants’
ceramic plate/metal base with through hole. The presence of metal base 9 in
contact with ceramic body 7 affects the heat transfer properties of ceramic
body 7. In contrast, Okajima ʼ308’s heater 31 consists only of a single
ceramic plate 32 with no metal base therebeneath. As such, because we find
that the structure of Okajima ʼ308 is not “thermally” equivalent to
Appellants’ ceramic plate/metal base with through hole, as the Examiner
proposes, we conclude that the Examiner’s reliance on Okajima ʼ308 to
teach “a heating value per unit area in a projection region of each of the at
least one through hole is 50% or less of a heating value per unit area in an
outer region,” as recited in claim 1, is based on conjecture and is not
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Appeal 2010-005475
Application 11/392,768

9
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1, and claims 4-8, 14, and 16, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kanno ʼ617, Okajima ʼ537, and Okajima ʼ308, as
evidenced by Kanno ʼ233.
Rejections V and VI – Obviousness based on Kanno ʼ617,
Okajima ʼ537, Okajima ʼ308, and Logan, as evidenced by
Kanno ʼ233, and Kanno ʼ617, Okajima ʼ537, Okajima ʼ308,
and Matsuda, as evidenced by Kanno ʼ233, respectively
Because the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 as unpatentable over
Kanno ʼ617, Okajima ʼ537, Okajima ʼ308, and Logan, as evidenced by
Kanno ʼ233, and the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 10 as unpatentable
over Kanno ʼ617, Okajima ʼ537, Okajima ʼ308, and Matsuda, as evidenced
by Kanno ʼ233, both rely upon the erroneous finding that Okajima ʼ308
discloses “a heating value per unit area in a projection region of each of said
at least one through hole is 50% or less of a heating value per unit area in an
outer region,” we do not sustain these rejections for the same reasons as
discussed supra with respect to the rejection of independent claim 1.

DECISION
We reverse all of the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-11 and 14-17.

REVERSED

Klh