Ex Parte Nguyen

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 28, 2002

09325835 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 28, 2002)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not precedent of the Board.

Paper No. 16

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte TUE NGUYEN

____________

Appeal No. 2002-0177
Application No. 09/325,835
____________

ON BRIEF
____________

Before GARRIS, OWENS, and PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent
Judges.

PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1-14 and 17. Claims 15, 16 have been cancelled. Claims
18-20 have been with drawn from consideration.
The subject matter on appeal is represented by claims 1,
11, 12, 14 and 17, each of which are set forth below:
1. A showerhead plate of a showerhead like precursor
delivery apparatus, comprising:
Appeal No. 2002-0177
Application No. 09/325,835

2
a plurality of delivery apertures placed in specified
geometric pattern about the showerhead plate, where each
delivery aperture is comprised of a large diameter bore to
provide improved flow conduction across the showerhead
plate and a smaller diameter bore that communicates with
the large diameter bore to provide proper mixing of the
precursor and a consistent pressure level across the entire
showerhead plate to provide a uniform delivery of precursor
to each delivery aperture; and
a heater means that maintains the showerhead plate at
a specified constant temperature, where the heater means
supply sufficient thermal energy to the showerhead plate to
maintain the specified temperature and compensate for the
dissipation of heat caused by the precursor as it moves
through the plate.

11. The precursor delivery system in accordance with
claim 1, wherein heating means is embedded in the
showerhead plate.

12. The precursor delivery system in accordance with
claim 1, wherein the delivery plurality of aperture of the
showerhead plate form a [sic] array of concentric circles.

14. A showerhead system with improved flow conduction
and thermal conductance for a precursor delivery apparatus
comprising:
a plurality of precursor inlet ports;
a first showerhead plate having improved flow
conduction and thermal conductance;
a baffle plate below the precursor inlet ports to
diffuse the precursor dispensed from the inlet and
a second showerhead plate with improved flow
conduction and thermal conductance at the precursor inlet
ports to diffuse the precursor dispensed from the inlet.

17. The showerhead system in accordance with claim
14, wherein an area containing the delivery apertures of
the second showerhead plate is smaller than the area
containing the delivery aperture of the first showerhead
plate;
the delivery holes of the second high flow conductance
and high thermal conductance showerhead plate are tilted
outward for delivering the precursor uniformly at a greater
area.

Appeal No. 2002-0177
Application No. 09/325,835

3
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
unpatentability are:
Rose et al. (Rose) 4,792,378 Dec. 20, 1988
Vukelic 5,268,034 Dec. 07, 1993
Murakami et al. (Murakami) 5,728,223 Mar. 17, 1998
Japanese Publication (Ogi) JP57-38721 Mar. 02, 1982

Claims 1-10 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over appellant’s admitted prior art in view
of Vukelic.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over appellant’s admitted prior art in view of
Vukelic and further in view of Murakami.
Claims 12 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over appellant’s admitted prior art in view
of Vukelic and further in view of Ogi.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over appellant’s admitted prior art in view of
Vukelic and Ogi, and further view of Rose.
As indicated on page 5 of the brief, the claims on appeal
will stand or fall with each aforementioned rejection.
Therefore, we consider claims 1, 11, 12, 14, and 17. 37 CFR
§ 1.192 (c)(7)(8)(2000).

OPINION
For the reasons set forth below, we will sustain some of
the afore-noted rejections, but we will also reverse some of the
above-noted rejections.

Appeal No. 2002-0177
Application No. 09/325,835

4
I. 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-10 and 13
As pointed out by the examiner on pages 4-5 of the answer,
Figure 2 of appellants’ specification (admitted prior art) shows
a showerhead comprising a delivery hole 6, a showerhead heater
3, and a baffle 8.
We further note that Figure 2 (admitted prior art)
indicates that the delivery hole 6 has, on one side, a large
diameter bore, and, on the other side, a smaller diameter bore.
Hence, contrary to appellant’s assertions made throughout the
brief, the admitted prior art teaches a plurality of delivery
apertures placed in specified geometric pattern about the
showerhead plate, where each delivery aperture is comprised of a
large diameter bore and a smaller diameter bore.
We note that the examiner relies on Vukelic regarding the
thickness of the showerhead plate. However, the thickness is
not a requirement of claim 1 and we need only consider claim 1
because, as admitted by appellant, this grouping of claims under
this rejection stand or fall together. 37 CFR § 1.192 (c)(7)(8)
(2000). Because Vukelic is relied upon for the thickness of the
showerhead, we do not discuss this reference in sections II-IV
of the decision.
In view of the above, we affirm this rejection.

II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 11
On page 9 of the brief, appellant argues that Murakami does
not have an embedded heater, but rather, uses an external heater
63 as shown in Figure 9.
Upon our review of Murakami in this regard, we find that,
as shown in Figure 9, the heat medium is supplied through heat
medium pipe 62. The heat medium pipe is combined with a heater
63 for heating the heat medium. An extractor 64, such as a
Appeal No. 2002-0177
Application No. 09/325,835

5
pump, is used for extracting the heat medium from the heat
medium passages defined in the reactor 1, the support base 2,
and sleeve 6. Part of the heat medium supplied through the heat
medium pipe 62 is also supplied to the reactant gas ejector head
5. (See column 8, lines 5-15 of Murakami). From this
disclosure, we are unable to conclude that a heater is embedded
in the reactant gas ejector head 5. Hence, we agree with
appellant’s interpretation of Murakami and we disagree with the
examiner’s interpretation of Murakami in this regard.
Therefore, we reverse this rejection.

III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of Claims 12 and 14
As a preliminary matter, we note that claim 14 requires a
first and second showerhead plate. It appears that the examiner
has overlooked this aspect of claim 14 because, as discussed
under section IV of this decision, the examiner discusses this
particular subject matter in connection with claim 17, which
depends on claim 14. The examiner does not discuss this subject
matter in this rejection.
Appellant’s claim 12 requires that the showerhead plate
have apertures in the form of an array plurality of concentric
circles.
On page 10 of the brief, appellant argues that Ogi does not
show that the delivery aperture is comprised of a large diameter
bore and a smaller diameter bore.
Upon our view of Ogi, we find that, as stated by the
examiner on page 7 of the answer, Figure 4B of Ogi depicts
concentric circles. Hence we are in agreement with the examiner
that such a shape is known in the art.
We further note that Vukelic indicates at column 4,
beginning at line 35, that a perforated plate can have a
Appeal No. 2002-0177
Application No. 09/325,835

6
multiplicity of perforations, and the size, spacing and
arrangement of the perforations will vary with the specific use
of the fluid distribution head. Hence, as stated by the
examiner on page 5 of answer, the size and shape of delivery
holes are art-recognized variables.
Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 12.
However, with respect to the rejection of claim 14, the
examiner’s rejection does not set forth how the combination of
references in this rejection meets the requirement of claim 14
regarding a first and second showerhead plate, as mentioned
supra. We refer to our comments set forth below in connection
with rejection involving claim 17. In this regard, we reverse
the rejection of claim 14.

IV. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of Claim 17
The examiner relies upon Rose, and states that Rose
discloses a gas dispersion disk 20 and showerhead electrode 28.
The examiner concludes that based on this disclosure, it would
have been obvious to utilize two showerheads. On page 7 of the
answer, the examiner also asserts that duplication of parts has
been held to be obvious.
Firstly, an apparatus having a first showerhead plate and a
second showerhead plate, as for example, depicted in appellant’s
Figure 14 or Figure 15, is not a duplication of parts as
asserted by the examiner.
Secondly, upon our review of Rose, particularly Figure 1,
in column 4 at lines 38-43, Rose indicates that the gas
dispersion disk 20 functions as a selective barrier and is thus
effective to counteract gradient pressures existing above a disk
and provides a uniform flow of vapors through the showerhead for
distribution of the entire surface of the slice 37. This is not
Appeal No. 2002-0177
Application No. 09/325,835

7
a teaching of a first showerhead plate and a second showerhead
plate as required by claim 14, upon which claim 17 depends. In
this context, we note that appellants point out on page 11 of
the brief that Rose is directed to a chemical vapor transport
reactor gas dispersion disk 20 for counteracting vapor pressure
gradients to provide a uniform deposition of material films.
Hence appellant also recognizes that element 20 in Figure 1 of
Rose is a dispersion disk and not a second showerhead plate.
Furthermore, claim 17 requires that the delivery holes of
the second showerhead plate are tilted outward for delivering
the precursor uniformly at a greater area. The examiner has not
explained how Rose meets this aspect of appellant’s claim 17.
Therefore, we reverse this rejection.

V. Conclusion
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-10 and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over appellant’s admitted prior art in view of
Vukelic.
We reverse the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over appellant’s admitted prior art in of Vukelic and in further
view of Murakami.
We affirm the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over appellant’s admitter prior art in view of Vukelic and
further view of Ogi. However, we reverse the rejection of claim
14 in this regard.
We reverse the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over appellant’s admitted prior art in view of Vukelic and Ogi
and further view of Rose.

Appeal No. 2002-0177
Application No. 09/325,835

8
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

)
BRADLEY R. GARRIS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)BOARD OF PATENT
) APPEALS AND
TERRY J. OWENS ) INTERFERENCES
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
BEVERLY A. PAWLIKOWSKI )
Administrative Patent Judge )

SLD

Appeal No. 2002-0177
Application No. 09/325,835

9
TUE NGUYEN
496 OLIVE AVE
FREMONT, CA 94539