Ex Parte Sadjadi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

12121711 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/121,711 05/15/2008 S. M. Reza Sadjadi
105653 7590 10/03/2016
Beyer Law Group LLP/Lam
P. 0. Box 51887
Palo Alto, CA 94303-1887
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.
LAM1P277 /Pl839 7370
EXAMINER
ALEJANDRO MULERO, LUZ L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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):
USPTOmail@beyerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte S. M. REZA SADJADI
Appeal 2015-003 622
Application 12/121, 711
Technology Center 1700
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision2 finally rejecting claims 1, 3-8, and 19-22. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
The subject matter of the appeal relates to the formation of
semiconductor devices. Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claims on appeal.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Lam Research Corporation.
Appeal Brief filed August 25, 2014 ("App. Br."), 3.
2 Final Office Action mailed March 21, 2014 ("Final Act.").
Appeal2015-003622
Application 12/121, 711
1. A system for forming semiconductor features,
compnsmg:
an inductively coupled plasma processing chamber, comprising:
a vacuum chamber;
at least one antenna adjacent to the vacuum chamber for
providing inductively coupled power in the vacuum chamber;
a substrate support for supporting a silicon substrate within the
plasma processing
a pressure regulator for regulating the pressure in the plasma
processing chamber;
a gas inlet for providing gas into the plasma processing
chamber; and
a gas outlet for exhausting gas from the plasma processing
chamber;
a gas distribution system in fluid connection with the gas inlet
for providing a first gas and a second gas, wherein the gas
distribution system can substantially replace one of the first gas
and the second gas in the plasma zone with the other of the first
gas and the second gas within a period of less than 5 seconds;
and
a confinement mechanism spaced from the substrate support
and the vacuum chamber and within the vacuum chamber,
wherein the confinement mechanism defines a plasma zone
within confinement region extending from the substrate support
to the confinement mechanism;
and
a drive system for moving the confinement mechanism in a
direction to surround the wafer allowing for a smaller volume
surrounding the wafer as compared to the entire chamber
volume.
App. Br. (Claims Appendix) 35.
2
Appeal2015-003622
Application 12/121, 711
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL 3
1. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement;
2. Claims 1, 6-8, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Huang et al. (WO 2005/112093, published Nov.
24, 2005) (hereinafter "Huang") in view of Paranjpe
(US 5,231,334, issued Jul. 27, 1993) ("hereinafter Paranjpe") and
Han et al. (US 2005/0051268 Al, published Mar. 10, 2005)
(hereinafter "Han");
3. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Huang in view of Paranjpe and Han, and further in view of
Ishii et al. (US 5,571,366, issued Nov. 5, 1996) (hereinafter
"Ishii");
4. Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Huang in view of Paranjpe and Han, and further
in view of Carman et al. (US 5,294,778, issued Mar. 15, 1994)
(hereinafter "Carman") and Gao et al. (US 7, 156,951 B 1, issued
Jan. 2, 2007) (hereinafter "Gao") or Kitayama et al. (US
2004/0097088 Al, published May 20, 2004) (hereinafter
"Kitayama"); and
3 In the Examiner's Answer mailed December 2, 2014, the Examiner
modified the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) already of record
in the Final Office Action mailed March 21, 2014, by reducing the number
of alternative prior art references. Appellant did not file a petition within
two months of the mailing of the Examiner's Answer disputing the modified
grounds of rejection.
3
Appeal2015-003622
Application 12/121, 711
5. Claims 19--21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Huang et al. in view of Paranjpe and Han.
DISCUSSION
After consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellant's contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence
supports the Examiner's conclusions that the subject matter of
Appellant's claims is unpatentable over the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections for substantially
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office
Action and Answer. See generally Final Act. 2, 11-20, and Ans. 4--
11. We offer the following for emphasis only.
Rejection 1
Appellant does not address the rejection of claim 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph in the Appeal Brief filed
August 25, 2014, which the Appellant admits at page 4 of the Reply
Brief filed January 28, 2015. Appellant, thus, has waived any
argument of error, and we summarily sustain the rejection of claim 22
under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the
written description requirement. See Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (MPEP) § 1205.02, 9th ed., Rev. July 2015 ("if a ground of
rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant's
brief, that ground of rejection will be summarily sustained by the
Board.").
Appellant's arguments regarding the rejection of claim 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph at page 5 of the Reply Brief are
4
Appeal2015-003622
Application 12/121, 711
untimely because these arguments are not in response to an argument
made by the Examiner in the Answer and could have been made in the
Appeal Brief, and Appellant provides no reason for the arguments'
late inclusion. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2016) ("Any argument
raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is
not responsive to an argument raised in the examiner's answer ... will
not be considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal,
unless good cause is shown.").
Rejection 2
Appellant argues the claims as a group with respect to the
second stated rejection. We select claim 1 as representative of the
rejected claims, and the remaining claims on appeal will stand or fall
with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(l)(iv) (2015).
The Examiner finds, and Appellant does not dispute that Huang
discloses a semiconductor material plasma processing apparatus 10
that includes a plasma processing chamber 12, for example, an
inductively coupled plasma reactor, a substrate support 14 for
supporting a substrate 16, such as a silicon wafer, a pressure regulator
300 for regulating pressure in the plasma processing chamber, a gas
inlet (235, 245) for providing gas into the plasma chamber and a gas
outlet (324, 326, 364, 366) for exhausting gas from the plasma
processing chamber (Huang 5:6-12; 7: 1-17:24; Figs. 1-5). Final
Act. 11-12. The gas is energized into the plasma state in the plasma
processing chamber 12 by a power source, such as an RF driving
electrode 22 (Huang 8:27-30). In a preferred embodiment, Huang's
plasma processing chamber includes a plasma confinement zone
5
Appeal2015-003622
Application 12/121, 711
(Huang 7: 11-12). In addition, the Examiner finds, and Appellant
does not dispute that Huang discloses a gas distribution system in
fluid communication with the gas inlet (235, 245) for providing a first
and a second gas, wherein the distribution system can substantially
replace one of the first and second gas in the plasma zone with the
other of the first and second gas within a period of less than 5 seconds
(Huang 9:9-10:7; Fig. 2). Final Act. 12.
The Examiner acknowledges that Huang does not expressly
disclose at least one antenna adjacent to the vacuum chamber for
providing inductively coupled power in the vacuum chamber. Id.
The Examiner, however, finds that Paranjpe discloses an apparatus
having at least one multi-tum pancake coil (antenna) adjacent to the
vacuum chamber for providing inductively coupled power into the
plasma in the vacuum chamber to induce intense electric fields inside
the plasma chamber that sustain the plasma (Paranjpe 2:6-14). Final
Act. 12. The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated, based on Paranjpe, to replace Huang's
capacitive coupling plasma generator (RF electrode) with Paranjpe' s
inductively coupling plasma generator (coil) to generate an intense
electric field inside the chamber and create high density plasma.
Ans. 7.
The Examiner also acknowledges that Huang and Paranjpe do
not expressly disclose a confinement mechanism or a drive system for
moving the confinement mechanism as recited in claim 1. Final Act.
12-13. The Examiner, however, finds that Hans discloses a
confinement mechanism and drive system for moving the mechanism
6
Appeal2015-003622
Application 12/121, 711
meeting the limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 13. The Examiner finds
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
modify Huang's apparatus, as modified by Paranjpe, to include a
confinement mechanism and drive system for moving the confinement
mechanism, as taught by Hans, to effectively, efficiently, and
accurately control the confinement of the plasma to regions
immediately adjacent to the substrate. Id. at 14.
Appellant argues that there is no motivation to combine
Paranjpe's plasma generator with Huang's plasma processing
chamber because Huang already has a plasma generating component,
such as an RF source driving electrode 22 (Huang 8:27-30; Fig. 1 ),
and is not designed to accommodate an additional plasma source into
its substrate support 14. App. Br.23-24. In addition, Appellant
argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been
motivated to modify Huang's plasma processing chamber to include a
confinement mechanism and drive system, as claimed in claim 1,
because Huang would not have space to include confinement rings.
App. Br. 25-26. Appellant's arguments are not persuasive of
reversible error in the Examiner's rejection. The test for obviousness
is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily
incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather,
the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Moreover, when combining references, "a
court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR Int 'l Co. v.
7
Appeal2015-003622
Application 12/121, 711
Telejlex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). As discussed above, the
Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to replace Huang's capacitive plasma generator with
Paranjpe's coiled plasma generator, which Paranjpe teaches is an
alternative means for generating an intense electric field inside a
plasma chamber to create high density plasma. Appellant does not
explain why the Examiner's finding is erroneous. Similarly,
Appellant does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would
not have, using no more than ordinary creativity, modified Huang's
system to include a confinement mechanism and drive system, such as
taught by Han. Moreover, Huang expressly teaches that its system
preferably includes a confinement mechanism such as a confinement
ring arrangement as taught in Han (Huang 7: 11-21 ), which
contradicts Appellant's assertion that Huang would not have space for
a confinement mechanism.
Rejection 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 1, and further requires a
temperature controller which is able to provide heating and cooling to
the substrate support to provide a temperature range of at least -1 OQC
to 120QC.
The Examiner acknowledges that Huang, Paranjpe, and Han do
not expressly disclose a temperature controller as recited in claim 3,
and relies on Ishii (Figs. 1 and 5-10) as teaching for this limitation.
The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to include Ishii' s temperature controller in Huang's
8
Appeal2015-003622
Application 12/121, 711
apparatus, as modified by Paranjpe and Han, to more accurately
control processing within the apparatus. Final Ac.t 15-16.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's finding that Ishii
teaches a temperature controller or that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to include a temperature controller in
Huang's apparatus to more accurately control processing. See App.
Br. 27-30. Rather, Appellant argues that because Ishii fails to
specify a temperature range provided by the temperature controller,
Ishii fails to teach or suggest a temperature controller as recited in
claim 3. Id. at 28. This argument is not persuasive of reversible error
in the Examiner's rejection. The recitation "which is able to provide
heating or cooling to the substrate support to provide a temperature of
at least -1 OQC to 120QC," merely describes how the temperature
controller functions. Functional recitations in an apparatus claim are
given weight in that the corresponding prior art structures must
possess the capability of performing the recited function. See In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). There is a
reasonable basis to support the Examiner's finding that Ishii's
temperature controller, by virtue of being able to provide any desired
heating and cooling to a substrate support, is capable of carrying out
the function recited in claim 3. Ans. 8-9. Appellant does not provide
persuasive arguments or evidence to rebut the Examiner's finding.
Rejection 4
Appellant argues that the rejection of claims 4 and 5 is based on
an undue number of references is not persuasive of error in the
Examiner's rejection. Reply Br. 4. Reliance on a large number of
9
Appeal2015-003622
Application 12/121, 711
references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the
obviousness of the claimed invention. In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982
(Fed. Cir. 1991) ("The criterion, however, is not the number of
references, but what they would have meant to a person of ordinary
skill in the field of the invention.").
Rejection 5
Claim 21 depends indirectly from claim 1, and requires "a
maximum confinement is provided when the top of the confinement
mechanism is raised to a highest position above the top surface of the
substrate."
Appellant argues that there is no teaching or suggesting in Han
that "a maximum confinement is provided when the top of the
confinement mechanism is raised to a highest position above the top
surface of the substrate," as recited in dependent claim 21. App.
Br. 12-14. We find this argument unpersuasive of reversible error
because as the Examiner points out at page 5 of the Answer, one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand that the confinement
mechanism shown in Han's Figure 13 works by adjusting the
confinement rings, for example, raising the confinement rings up from
a lower position for maximum confinement, and lowering the
confinement rings down when less confinement is desired. See Han
i-fi-16, 36, 39; Fig. 13. Therefore, Han teaches or at least arguably
suggests a maximum confinement is provided when the top of the
confinement mechanism is raised to a highest position above the top
surface of the substrate, as claimed by dependent claim 21.
10
Appeal2015-003622
Application 12/121, 711
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3-8, and
19-22 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
11