Ex Parte RANISH

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 15, 2018

14254578 (P.T.A.B. May. 15, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/254,578 04/16/2014 Joseph M. RANISH
44257 7590 05/17/2018
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP- -Applied Materials
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
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.
020545USA/FEP/RTP/PJT 5748
EXAMINER
CAMPBELL, THOR S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/17/2018 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):
Pair_Eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH M. RANISH
Appeal2017-007488
Application 14/254,578
Technology Center 3700
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 8, 13-18, and 21-24. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
According to Appellant, "the disclosure generally relate[ s] to
thermally treating substrates, such as semiconductor substrates." Spec. ,r 2.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Applied Materials, Inc.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-007488
Application 14/254,578
Claims 1, 8, and 18 are the only independent claims on appeal. Below, we
reproduce claim 1 as illustrative of the appealed claims.
1. A processing chamber, comprising:
a chamber body;
a substrate support positioned within the chamber body
and adapted to support a substrate in a support plane;
a radiant heat source disposed within the chamber body to
direct radiant heat towards the support plane; and
an optically transparent window disposed between the
substrate support plane and the radiant heat source, the optically
transparent window including one or more light diffusing
structures thereon, the one or more light diffusing structures
comprising a frosted surface of the optically transparent window
or one or more Fresnel lenses.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1--4, 18, 21, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Shao et al. (US 2002/0030047 Al, pub. Mar. 14,
2002) (hereinafter "Shao") and either Yoo (US 6,862,404 B 1, iss. Mar. 1,
2005) or Gally et al. (US 2011/0316861 Al, pub. Dec. 29, 2011) (hereinafter
"Gally"). 2
The Examiner rejects claims 8, 13-17, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Sorabji et al. (US 8,111,978 B2, iss. Feb. 7, 2012)
(hereinafter "Sorabji"), Shao, and either Yoo or Gally.
2 We understand that the Examiner rejects claim 21 as obvious based on
Shao and either Yoo or Gally. See Answer 2 ("Shao ... discloses in
reference to ... claim[s] ... 1, 18, 21, 23, and 24 .... ").
2
Appeal2017-007488
Application 14/254,578
ANALYSIS
Obviousness rejection based on Shao and either Yoo or Gally
Appellant argues that the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claims 1--4, 18, 23, and 24, based on Shao and either Yoo or Gally, is in
error. Appeal Br. 7-8. In particular, Appellant argues that
the lens of Shao ... does not diffuse light, rather, it focuses or
converges light. Therefore, Shao . . . is silent regarding an
optically transparent window disposed between the substrate
support and the radiant heat source, the optically transparent
window including one or more light diffusing structures thereon,
the one or more light diffusing structures comprising a frosted
surface of the optically transparent window or one or more
Fresnel lenses,
as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent
claim 18. Id. at 7 ( emphases omitted). According to Appellant, "Yoo and
Gally ... do not cure the deficiencies of Shao." Id. (emphases omitted).
Based on our review, however, Appellant does not persuade us of error.
Thus, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1--4, 18, 23, and 24.
More specifically, the Examiner finds that Shao discloses a light-
diffusing lens, and that it would have been obvious to replace Shao's light-
diffusing lens with Yoo' s light-diffusing Fresnel lens, as claimed. See, e.g.,
Answer 2-3. The Examiner adequately supports these findings. For
example, the Examiner finds that Shao's Figure 17 discloses a light-
diffusing lens. Id. at 9. This is consistent with Appellant's Specification,
which describes the scalloped-lens structure shown in Shao's figure as a
"light diffusing structure." Spec. ,r 14. ("The light diffusing structures may
include a scalloped ... surface having protruding or indented features.").
Thus, the Examiner provides evidence that Shao's quartz lens assembly 122,
3
Appeal2017-007488
Application 14/254,578
which is made up of lens elements 123 (see Answer 8-10), "collect[s] and
redirect[ s] light [in] much the same way as" the claimed Fresnel lens
(Answer 9).
Conversely, Appellant does not persuade us, with evidence or a line of
reasoning, that the Examiner's finding is erroneous. Instead, Appellant
argues that there are differences between Shao' s quartz lens assembly and
the claimed Fresnel lens. "For example, Fresnel lenses are thinner and
lighter weight, but more complex in design and therefore more labor
intensive to create. Additionally, Fresnel lenses often provide better
focusing, and higher image quality." Reply Br. 3. Inasmuch as the
Examiner adequately supports the finding that Shao' s quartz lens assembly
"collect[ s] and redirect[ s] light [in] much the same way as" the claimed
Fresnel lens (Answer 9), and Appellant does not persuade us of error, we
agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to replace Shao' s
lens assembly with Yoo's Fresnel lens (id. at 11).
Appellant's further arguments are not persuasive of error.
Specifically, it is not dispositive whether Shao' s "conventional circular
quartz window" does or does not diffuse light. See Reply Br. 2. This is
because, as discussed above, the Examiner adequately supports that Shao' s
lens assembly acts similar to a Fresnel lens by diffusing light. Further,
although Shao discusses the desire to redirect light (see Appeal Br. 7; see
also Reply Br. 2), for the reasons set forth above, Shao's lens assembly also
diffuses light.
4
Appeal2017-007488
Application 14/254,578
Obviousness rejection based on Sorabji, Shao, and either Yoo or
Gally
Appellant's arguments regarding the Examiner's rejection of claims 8,
13-17, and 22 are substantially the same as those set forth above, with the
additional argument that Sorabji does not remedy the deficiencies of the
combination of Shao and either Yoo or Gally. Thus, for reasons similar to
those discussed above, we sustain the rejection of claims 8, 13-17, and 22.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1--4, 8,
13-18, and 21-24.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5