Ex Parte Sharpless et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2016

12748141 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121748,141 03/26/2010 Leonard J. Sharpless
119138 7590 09/23/2016
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC - LAM RESEARCH CORP
1737 KING STREET, SUITE 500
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
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.
1015292-000318 4576
EXAMINER
LEE,AIDENY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1718
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2016 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):
ADIPDOCl@BIPC.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE
THE PA TENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LEONARD J. SHARPLESS, 1
Hanneet Singh, and Michael S. Kang
Appeal2015-001714
Application 12/748,141
Technology Center 1700
Before MARK NAGUMO, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Leonard J. Sharpless, Harmeet Singh, and Michael S. Kang ("Lam")
timely appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection2 of
claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20, which are all of the pending claims. 3 We have
jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6. We reverse for reasons given by Lam.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Lam Research Corporation
("Lam") (Appeal Brief, filed 2 July 2014 ("Br."), 2.).
2 Office action mailed 25 September 2013 ("Final Rejection"; cited as
"FR").
3 Notice of Panel Decision from Pre-Appeal Brief Review (29 May 2014).
Appeal2015-001714
Application 12/748,141
A. Introduction4
OPINION
The subject matter on appeal relates to a replaceable upper chamber
section 2445 of a plasma reaction chamber 202, illustrated in Fig. 1, below .
242
'
..----~-----~---.
G/i,S DISTRIBUTlON --- ? Y STEM (222) 231
0 UUJ
COOLING
SYSTEM (240)
FIG. 1
MATCHING
NETWORK
M1\TCH!MG
NET\NORt{
(236)
{Fig. 1 shows plasma reaction chamber 202 with replaceable upper
section 244}
The '141 Specification teaches that upper chamber section 244 is
typically a machined aluminum cylinder having a conical inner surface
4 Application 12/748,141, Replaceable upper chamber section of plasma
processing apparatus, filed 26 March 2010, claiming the benefit of a
provisional application filed 27 March 2009. We refer to the substitute
specification filed 5 May 2010 as the '" 141 Specification," which we cite as
"Spec."
5 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, labels to elements are presented in
bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
2
Appeal2015-001714
Application 12/748,141
coated with a plasma-resistant material such as a thermally sprayed yttria
coating. (Spec. 3 [0010], 4 [0015].) It is said to be desirable to remove the
upper chamber section for cleaning, but the yttria coating is easily damaged,
and it is sometimes preferred to replace the chamber section rather than
cleaning it. (Id. at 3 [0010].) Moreover, alignment is critical for proper
gasket sealing (Id. at 3 [0011].) Furthermore, the substantial amount of
material in the upper chamber section is said to result in a large thermal
mass that can store thermal energy from the plasma process for extended
periods and make control of multi-step multi-temperature processing more
difficult. (Id. at 3 [0012]-4 [0013].) In particular, the Specification
indicates that "heat-flow variations originating from the upper chamber
section may cause the substrate temperature to vary outside narrow recipe
parameters." (Id. at 4 [0013].)
The inventors seek patent protection for a replaceable upper chamber
section 300, shown in Fig. 3, below right.
262 254
FIG. 2 FIG. 3
{Annotated Fig. 2 (left) shows a prior art upper chamber section}
{Annotated Fig. 3 (right) shows an inventive upper chamber section 300}
3
Appeal2015-001714
Application 12/748,141
Upper chamber section 300 is said to have improved thermal characteristics
due to thermal choke 314-the thin-walled section of the cylinder that
minimizes thermal transfer to the bottom chamber section 250-compared to
the substantially constant-width wall of the prior art upper chamber section
illustrated supra in Fig. 2 (left).
Claim 1 is representative and reads:
A replaceable upper chamber section of a plasma reaction
chamber in which semiconductor substrates can be processed,
compnsmg:
a monolithic metal cylinder having
a conical inner surface which has a largest diameter at a
lower end thereof,
an upper flange extending horizontally outward away from
the conical inner surface and
a lower flange extending horizontally away from the
conical inner surface;
an upper annular vacuum sealing surface adapted to seal
against a dielectric window of the plasma chamber;
a lower annular vacuum sealing surface adapted to seal
against a bottom section of the plasma chamber;
a thermal choke at a lower portion of the cylinder effective
to minimize transfer of heat across the lower vacuum
sealing surface,
the thermal choke defined by a thin metal section having
a thickness of less than 0.25 inch and extending at
least 25 % of the length of the conical inner surface; and
a thermal mass section at an upper portion of the cylinder,
the thermal mass section defined by a portion of the
cylinder between the conical inner surface, an outer
surface extending vertically from the upper flange, a
horizontal surface extending from an upper end of the
thermal choke, and the upper flange.
(Br., Claims App. 1; some indentation, paragraphing, and emphasis added.)
4
Appeal2015-001714
Application 12/748,141
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection6 :
A. Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 13, 15, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of
Sharpless,7 Knowlton, 8 and Ikeda. 9
Al. Claims 9, 12, 16, and 19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of
Sharpless, Knowlton, and Ikeda, and Chang. 10
A2. Claims 2 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Sharpless, Knowlton, and
Ikeda, and Tyler. 11
A3. Claims 5, 11, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
in view of the combined teachings of Sharpless, Knowlton,
and Ikeda, and Yoshida. 12
A4. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
the combined teachings of Sharpless, Knowlton, and Ikeda,
and Cho. 13
A5. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
the combined teachings of Sharpless, Knowlton, and Ikeda,
and Rice. 14
6 Examiner's Answer mailed 30 September 2014 ("Ans.").
7 Leonard J. Sharpless and Keith Comendant, Apparatus for an optimized
plasma chamber top piece, U.S. Patent Application Publication
2006/0000413 Al (2006). (Issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,789,791
(24 August 2010), assigned to Lam Research Corp.).
8 Gregory D. Knowlton, et al., Heat transfer delay, U.S. Patent
No. 6,298,784 Bl (2001).
9 Fumihide Ikeda and Y asuhiro Inokuchi, Substrate processing apparatus,
U.S. Patent No. 6, 132,553 (2000).
10 Chris Chang, U.S. Patent No. 7,220,497 B2 (2007).
11 James Scott Tyler, U.S. Patent No. 6,972,071 Bl (2005).
12 Kohei Yoshida et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,113,732 (2000).
13 Byung Chul Cho et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0149212
Al (2004).
5
Appeal2015-001714
Application 12/748,141
B. Discussion
Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record.
Lam urges that the Examiner has provided no reason to combine the
teachings of Sharpless, which are directed to a plasma processing chamber
comprising a replaceable upper chamber section, with the teachings of
Knowlton, which are directed to a heat transfer delay provided by a heat
transfer device in propellant, pyrotechnic, and explosive devices. Lam
argues that the mere prior existence of thermal chokes-a fact that Lam
acknowledges-does not suffice to demonstrate that it would have been
obvious to incorporate such a thermal choke as a thin (less than 0.25 inch
thick) walled section of the upper chamber section as required by the
appealed claims. (See Br. 6, 2d para.; App. Br. 7, 3d para.)
The weight of the evidence of record, including the references and the
rationale of the rejections, supports Lam's arguments. The optimized
chamber sections described by Sharpless reportedly weigh about 80% less
than the prior art upper chamber sections (Sharpless 3 [0029]) and also have
a thermal mass about 80% less than the [then] existing non-optimized top
pieces (id. at [0042]). Although we note that Sharpless teaches that the
relative small thermal mass allows temperature corrections by the cooling
system to be "substantially synchronized" (id.), the Examiner has not
directed our attention to any substantial concern expressed by Sharpless with
the adverse consequences of heat transfer in the prior art upper chamber
sections or in the lighter, ergonomically optimized chamber sections. The
14 Rice et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,095,083 (2000).
6
Appeal2015-001714
Application 12/748,141
only place such concerns are expressed in the present record appear to be in
the disclosure of the '141 Specification. Hindsight, however, is not an
appropriate basis for the legal conclusion of obviousness.
The Examiner makes no findings regarding Ikeda, which is directed to
thermal reaction furnaces for semiconductor substrate processing (Ikeda,
col. 1, 11. 5-11 ), or regarding any of the other references, that cure the
fundamental defect of the attempted combination of teachings of Sharpless
and Knowlton.
We therefore reverse the rejections of record.
C. Order
It is ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-20 is
reversed.
REVERSED
7