Ex Parte Riker et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 3, 201714182831 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/182,831 02/18/2014 MARTIN LEE RIKER 17637USA 1130 55649 7590 11/07/2017 Moser Taboada / Applied Materials, Inc. 1030 Broad Street Suite 203 Shrewsbury, NJ 07702 EXAMINER BAND, MICHAEL A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1754 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/07/2017 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): ataboada@mtiplaw.com docketing@mtiplaw.com llinardakis @ mtiplaw. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARTIN LEE RIKER, UDAY PAI, WILLIAM FRUCHTERMAN, KEITH A. MILLER, MUHAMMAD M. RASHEED, THANH X. NGUYEN, and KIRANKUMAR SAVANDAIAH (Applicant: Applied Materials, Inc.) Appeal 2017-004255 Application 14/182,8311 Technology Center 1700 Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting2 claims 1—3, 8, 10-17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as 1 Applicant, Applied Materials, Inc. (“Appellant”), is identified in the Appeal Brief as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. 2 The rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn by the Examiner. Ans. 3. Appeal 2017-004255 Application 14/182,831 being unpatentable over Ivanov3 in view of Earley,4 as evidenced by Liu5 and Stimson.6 In the Answer, the Examiner sets forth a new ground of rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Ivanov in view of Earley, as evidenced by Liu and Stimson. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).7 Ans. 3^4. We REVERSE. The subject matter on appeal relates to a target assembly for a substrate processing chamber (see, e.g., claim 1). The inventors disclose that in physical vapor deposition (PVD) processes differences in thermal expansion can lead to movement between the backing plate and chamber wall when a processing temperature increases during operation. Spec. 13. The inventors disclose that this movement can lead to friction, which in turn causes grinding between the backing plate and the insulating ring the backing plate rests upon. Id. This grinding can cause wear that can lead to contamination of the PVD process. Id. In view of this, the inventors disclose a target assembly that may reduce fiction between a target and a PVD chamber. Id. 14. Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief.8 The limitations at issue are italicized. 1. A target assembly for a substrate processing chamber, comprising: a plate comprising a first side including a central portion and a support portion, wherein the central portion is configured to support target source material; 3 Ivanov et al., US 7,922,881 B2, issued Apr. 12, 2011 (“Ivanov”). 4 Earley, US 5,607,124, issued Mar. 4, 1997 (“Earley”). 5 Liu et al., US 6,730,174 B2, issued May 4, 2004 (“Liu”). 6 Stimson et al., US 6,297,595 Bl, issued Oct. 2, 2001 (“Stimson”). 7 Our decision refers to the Specification filed Feb. 18, 2014 (Spec.), the Appeal Brief filed Aug. 15, 2016 (Appeal Br.), the Examiner’s Answer mailed Nov. 9, 2016 (Ans.), and the Reply Brief filed Jan. 9, 2017 (Reply Br.). 8 Appeal Br., Claims Appendix 15. 2 Appeal 2017-004255 Application 14/182,831 a plurality of recesses formed in the support portion; and a plurality of pads partially disposed in the plurality of recesses, wherein each of the plurality of pads is secured to the support portion via a fastener disposed through the pad, wherein each of the plurality of pads includes a bearing surface, a countersunk recess having a first diameter that extends partially into a body of the pad, and a through hole having a second diameter that is smaller than the first diameter, and wherein a head of the fastener is disposed within the countersunk recess of the pad below the bearing surface. B. DISCUSSION Rejection of Claims 1—3, 8, 10—15, 17, and 19 Claims 1—3, 8, 10-15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov in view of Earley, as evidenced by Liu and Stimson. We select claim 1 as representative for resolving the issues on appeal. The Examiner finds Ivanov discloses a target assembly that includes a plurality of counter bore holes 2419 and a plurality of plastic pressure pads 240 received in the holes 241. Ans. 4—5. The Examiner finds Ivanov does not disclose a fastener disposed through the pads 240, as recited in claim 1. Id. at 5. The Examiner finds Earley discloses an anchoring and support arrangement in which a plastic disc is used to secure an object to a wall or support via a fastener disposed through a central hole. Id. at 5—6. The Examiner finds: Although Earley is directed to a different field of endeavor than Ivanov et al, both of the references Earley and Ivanov et al are directed to application of plastic spacer pads in a structure for support, with Earley teaching to provide each plastic spacer pad with a counterbore hole, through which a fastener is provided to connect to the structure to thereby provide a more secure connection along with a controlled spacing or gap. Since Ivanov et al teaches the plastic 9 Throughout this Decision, for clarity, we present labels to elements in figures in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document. 3 Appeal 2017-004255 Application 14/182,831 spacer pads are provided in grooves of a target plate which is then set onto a chamber wall or structure to have a defined gap, the plastic spacer pads have the potential to shift or fall out of the grooves, resulting in one of ordinary skill to look to a simpler mechanical connection mechanism in order to prevent this shifting or falling out, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have looked to mechanisms that secure plastic spacer pads to a structure or wall. Id. at 6. In view of the above, the Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to include a fastener through each pad 240 of Ivanov, as taught by Earley, to provide a secure connection between each pad and support, to provide a controllable gap between the support and plate, and to provide a more secure, permanent, and/or integral connection between each pad 240 and its support. Id. at 7. Appellant contends, among other things, there would have been no reason to modify Ivanov in view of Earley because Ivanov discloses “the pressure pads 240 are generally cylindrical in shape and configured to snuggly fit within the bore holes 241” and thus already discloses retention of the pressure pads 240 within the bore holes 241. Appeal Br. 7—8 (quoting Ivanov 3:34—36). As a result, Appellant asserts there would have been no reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to look to the disclosure of Earley, which regards a down spout spacer and anchoring arrangement, for additional means to secure the pressure pads 240. Id. at 8. Moreover, Appellant argues Liu and Stimson merely demonstrate the use of screw fasteners and do not disclose securing a pad to its support via a fastener through the pad. Id. at 8—9. In view of this, Appellant contends the Examiner has engaged in impermissible hindsight. Id. at 11—12. Appellant’s arguments are persuasive. As noted above, the Examiner finds the pressure pads 240 of Ivanov have the potential to shift or fall out of the counter bore holes 241, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to other 4 Appeal 2017-004255 Application 14/182,831 securing mechanisms. Ans. 6. However, the Examiner does not cite to the prior art to support this finding. As argued by Appellant, Ivanov discloses “the pressure pads 240 are generally cylindrical in shape and configured to snuggly fit within the bore holes 241.” Ivanov 3:34—36. Ivanov does not disclose any problem with the pressure pads 240 shifting or falling out of the bore holes 241. The evidentiary references cited by the Examiner do not remedy this deficiency. The Examiner cites Liu as evidence it was “well known to use multiple fasteners (i.e. screw) [135] in a PVD apparatus in order to secure two structures (i.e. clamp ring [180] and flange [152]) together” and Stimson that it was “well known to use a plurality of fasteners (i.e. screws) [162] in a PVD apparatus in order to secure two structures (i.e. flange member [160] and ceramic ring [184].” Id. at 6—7. However, neither Liu nor Stimson supports the Examiner’s finding that there would have been a problem with securing the pressure pads 240 of Ivanov within their bore holes 241. Liu and Stimson also do not demonstrate that force fitting pads into holes, as disclosed by Ivanov, and securing pads via a fastener are equivalent joining methods. As a result, the prior art cited by the Examiner does not provide any suggestion or guidance to use a fastener (i.e., fastener extending through the central bore of a pad, as disclosed by Earley) as an additional or substitute joining means for the force fit between Ivanov’s pad 240 and hole 241. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify Ivanov in view of Earley but this conclusion is not supported by sufficient facts (e.g., that there was a known problem with securing Ivanov’s pads 240 or force fitting pads and fastening pads were known equivalents) and is not sufficient to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Ivanov’s pads 240 in view of Earley when there is no known problem with Ivanov’s device or suggestion to make such a modification. 5 Appeal 2017-004255 Application 14/182,831 In view of the above, it appears that the Examiner has relied upon impermissible hindsight in the § 103 rejection of claim 1. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, (CCPA 1971) (“Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.”) Here, the Examiner does not rely upon knowledge that was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made when the Examiner finds there is a potential for Ivanov’s pads 240 to shift or fall out of bore holes 241. Instead, the Examiner uses ex post facto reasoning regarding the degree to which pads 240 are secure within bore holes 241 when there is no prior knowledge in the record to support the Examiner’s findings. As a result, the Examiner has not met the initial burden of setting forth a prima facie case of obviousness for claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Ivanov in view of Earley, as evidenced by Liu and Stimson. For the reasons set forth above, the rejection of claim 1 under § 103 over Ivanov in view of Earley, as evidenced by Liu and Stimson is not sustained. We reverse the § 103 rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 8, 10-15, 17, and 19 over the combination of Ivanov and Earley, as evidenced by Liu and Stimson for the same reasons. Rejection of Claim 16 Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Ivanov in view of Earley, as evidenced by Liu and Stimson. Claim 16 depends from claim 1. In the new 6 Appeal 2017-004255 Application 14/182,831 ground of rejection for claim 16, the Examiner cites Appellant’s admission that “ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene is a well-known type of polyethylene that has a well-known technical meaning and is clearly known and understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art.” Ans. 3^4. (quoting Appeal Br. 6). The Examiner’s reliance on Appellant’s admission does not cure the deficiencies discussed above with regard to the rejection of claim 1. Therefore, we likewise do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 16 over Ivanov in view of Earley, as evidenced by Liu and Stimson. DECISION On the record before us and for the reasons given in Appellant’s Appeal and Reply Briefs, we reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejections. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation