Ex Parte Sidhwa

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 27, 2010

10131455 (B.P.A.I. May. 27, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ARDESHIR JEHANGIR SIDHWA
____________

Appeal 2009-015221
Application 10/131,455
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: May 27, 2010
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 5, and 20-22. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).1

1 In rendering this decision we have considered Appellant’s Brief dated
March 25, 2009, and Reply Brief dated August 3, 2009.

Appeal 2009-015221
Application 10/131,455

THE REJECTIONS2
Appellant (Br. 10) requests review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 5, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Stevens.
2. Claims 1, 5, and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Stevens.
3. Claims 1 and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Lee and Takashi.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a clamp ring for securing substrates to a
support member within a deposition chamber. Appellant contends that the
cited prior art does not describe or suggest a clamp ring having an edge
exclusion lip with a variable bottom surface spaced from a support member
within a deposition chamber. The disputed feature is described in
independent claim 1 as follows:
wherein, the clamp ring is securing the substrate, the first bottom
surfaces substantially constantly spaced from the substrate across the
first width and the second bottom surface is variably spaced from the
substrate across the second width

The disputed feature is described in independent claim 21 as follows:

2 The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Takashi JP 09143716 A Jun. 3, 1997
Stevens US 5,810,931 Sep. 22, 1998
Lee US 6,162,336 Dec. 19, 2000
2
Appeal 2009-015221
Application 10/131,455

when the clamp ring is securing the substrate, the first bottom surface
is substantially constantly spaced from the substrate across the first
width and the second bottom surface is spaced with linear variability
from the substrate across the second width.

The feature of the claimed invention is illustrated by Figures 3C and 3D
reproduced below:

Figure 3C

Figure 3D
Rejections 1 &2
ISSUE
The issue presented for review is as follows:
Has the Examiner erred in determining that Stevens describes and/or
suggests a clamp ring having an edge exclusion lip with a variable bottom
surface spaced from a support member within a deposition chamber as
required by claims 1 and 21?
The Examiner found that Stevens describes and/or suggests a clamp
ring with a substrate contacting surface having a peripheral edge and then
exclusion lip having a lower surface of variable height. According to the
Examiner (Ans. 3and 4), Stevens discloses
3
Appeal 2009-015221
Application 10/131,455

the lower roof surface of the lip having a plurality of steps (Col. 3
lines 45-67) and also it could have a convex surface (smoothly
variable space) (Col. 4 lines 1-5). The number of steps could also be
variable (see for example (Col. 7 lines 47-58).

The Examiner also found that Stevens (Col. 8 lines 5-7) discloses the roof
thickness could be tapered.
Appellant has correctly argued that Stevens describes ring clamps
having a multistep surface that does not include the separate slope angle
which is required by the claims 1 and 21. (Br. 16). Regarding the
Examiner’s citation to column 8 for describing the roof thickness as tapered,
Appellant appropriately responds that the cited portion of column 8 is
referring to the outer portion of the ring clamp (54) and not the surface
underneath as required by the claimed invention. Stevens figure 8 is
reproduced below:

Stevens figure 8
For the reasons set forth above and those set forth by Appellant in
their Appeal Brief, we reverse the rejections over Stevens.

Rejection 3
ISSUE
Appellant contends that the combination of Lee and Takashi fails to
suggest a clamp ring having an edge exclusion lip with a variable bottom
4
Appeal 2009-015221
Application 10/131,455

surface spaced from a support member within a deposition chamber as
required by claims 1 and 21.
The issue presented for review is as follows:
Has the Examiner erred in determining that the combination of Lee
and Takashi suggests a clamp ring having an edge exclusion lip with a
variable bottom surface spaced from a support member within a deposition
chamber as required by claims 1 and 21?
We answer this question in the negative. Therefore we affirm.
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that Lee describes a ring clamp comprising a lip
wherein the bottom surfaces are constantly spaced from the surface of the
secured substrate. (Br. 21). Appellant contends that Takashi discloses a ring
clamp comprising a lip that is chamfered across the portion projecting
inward from the contacting surface and flat across the portion extending
from the terminal edge. Appellant contends that the combination of Lee and
Takashi does not teach or suggest an edge exclusion lip having at least a
portion of a bottom surface sloped from a first height to a second height
smaller than the first height as specified in the claimed invention (Br. 20-
22).
Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive. The present rejection
utilizes the same references that were discussed in the prior appeal 2006-
1512. As we stated in our previous decision:
The Examiner cites Takashi for teaching that it was obvious to slope
the bottom surface of the clamp ring to reduce stress on the film to
prevent peeling and possible contamination of the deposited film
(Answer 5). As such a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
reasonably expected that the clamp ring of Lee could include a slope
5
Appeal 2009-015221
Application 10/131,455

from the first bottom surface to the second bottom surface with the
expectation of gaining the advantages described by Takashi.
(Decision 12)

Appellant has not explained why a person of ordinary skill in the art would
not have reasonably expected that these benefits would not have been
achieved by adding a sloped edge to the bottom surface of the lip of a clamp
ring. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected,
based on the descriptions of the cited prior art, that the bottom surface of the
lip of a clamp ring could have a sloped edge. We again recognize that
Appellant has not relied upon evidence of unexpected results in response the
Examiner's obviousness rejection.
Accordingly, Appellants have not persuasively argued that the facts
and reasons relied on by the Examiner are insufficient to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness as to independent claims 1 and 21 within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 5, and 20-22 over
Stevens is reversed.
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 and 20-22 over the
combination of Lee and Takashi is 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)(1)(v).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6
Appeal 2009-015221
Application 10/131,455

tc

Lisa K. Jorgenson
STMicroelectronics, Inc.
1310 Electronics Drive
Carrollton TX 75006
7