Ex Parte Van Der Veen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 7, 2016

13895620 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/895,620 05/16/2013 Shaun Van Der Veen
26185 7590 11/09/2016
FISH & RICHARDSON P,C (APPLIED MATERIALS)
P.O. BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
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.
l 1500C2/ AGS/22558-0036003 3535
EXAMINER
MORGAN, EILEEN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/09/2016 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHAUN VAN DER VEEN and STEVEN M. ZUNIGA
Appeal2014-008674
Application 13/895,620
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 19--24 and 26-32. We have jurisdiction over this appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as "Applied Materials,
Inc." (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal2014-008674
Application 13/895,620
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants' invention "relates to a retaining ring for use in
chemical mechanical polishing." (Spec. i-f 2.)
Illustrative Claim
19. A retaining ring, comprising:
an annular lower portion of a first material, the lower
portion having a lower surface to contact a polishing pad and an
upper surface, wherein the upper surface of the lower portion
includes an upwardly projecting step positioned along an inner
diameter of the lower portion, wherein a remainder of the upper
surface of the lower portion between the step and an outer
diameter of the lower portion is flat, and wherein at the inner
diameter of the lower portion a total height of the lower portion
including the step and between the lower and upper surfaces is
larger than a total height of the lower portion between the lower
and upper surfaces at a location between the step and an outer
diameter of the lower portion;
an annular upper portion of a different second material, the
upper portion having a lower surface and an upper surface,
wherein the lower surface of the upper portion includes a recess
positioned along an inner diameter of the upper portion and the
step fits into the recess, and wherein a remainder of the lower
surface of the upper portion between the recess and an outer
diameter of the upper portion is flat; and
a bonding layer securing the lower portion to the upper
portion.
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 19--24 and 26-32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Marohl (US 7,094,139 B2 issued Aug. 22,
2006) and Chen (US 2004/0219870 Al published November 4, 2004).
(Final Action 2.)
2
Appeal2014-008674
Application 13/895,620
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 19 recites a "retaining ring" comprising a "lower
portion," and an "upper portion." (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner
finds that Marohl discloses such a retaining ring. (See Final Action 2.)
Marohl discloses a retaining ring comprising a lower portion having a
"flat top surface" and an upper portion having a "flat bottom surface,"
wherein "[t]he lower portion and the upper portion are connected at their top
and bottom surfaces, respectively." (Marohl, col. 3, 11. 36-37, 59---60, col. 4,
11. 36-38, 42, reference numerals omitted.) In other words, Marohl discloses
that its upper and lower portions have flat interfacing surfaces.
Independent claim 19 requires the lower portion to include "an
upwardly projecting step positioned along [its] inner diameter" and requires
the upper portion to include "a recess positioned along [its] inner diameter."
(Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner finds that "Chen teaches a
retaining ring with a lower portion 105 and an upper portion 110, wherein
there is a step protruding upward from lower ring at the inner most diameter
and a recess in the upper ring at the inner most diameter to accommodate
[the] step." (Final Action 2.)
Chen discloses a retaining ring wherein "interlock features" are
located on the interfacing surfaces (i.e., upper surface 108 of lower ring 105
and lower surface 112 of upper ring 110.) (Chen i-f 29.) In the illustrated
retaining ring 100, a dovetail-shaped projection and a corresponding
depression are shown situated between the rings' inner and outer diameters.
(Id. Fig. 1.) According to the Examiner (see Answer 5), the undulating
profile of Chen's interlock features (i.e., the interlock projection and the
interlock depression) creates a first step-recess arrangement on the ring's
3
Appeal2014-008674
Application 13/895,620
inner diameter and a second step-recess arrangement on the ring's outer
diameter.
Independent claim 19 further requires that "a remainder of the upper
surface of the lower portion between the step and an outer diameter of the
lower portion [be] flat" and that "a remainder of the lower surface of the
upper portion between the recess and an outer diameter of the upper portion
[be] flat." (Appeal Br., Claims App.)
As discussed above, Marohl discloses that its interfacing surfaces (i.e.,
the upper surface of its lower portion and the bottom surface of its upper
portion) are flat. And, as pointed out by the Appellants, if Marohl' s flat
interfacing surfaces are modified to include Chen's interlocking features, the
remainders of these surfaces would no longer be flat as required by
independent claim 19. (See Appeal Br. 4--5.)
However, the Examiner does not view Chen as teaching an interlock
depression and an interlock projection, but rather as teaching two steps: one
at the inner diameter and one at the outer diameter. (See Final Action 2-3.)
According to the Examiner, although Chen shows "another step at the outer
diameter, this is irrelevant and one of ordinary skill would be motivated to
use one step or a plurality of steps and the choice of one is obvious." (Id.
at 3.) The Examiner reasons that Chen's teachings would have motivated
one of ordinary skill in the art "to use ONE step (at the inner diameter)"
when modifying Marohl' s retaining ring "to provide a more secure
connection." (Answer 4.)
We are persuaded by the Appellants' arguments that the Examiner's
reasoning in this regard is flawed. (See Appeal Br. 3---6.) We are persuaded
because Chen teaches a more secure connection is achieved by its
4
Appeal2014-008674
Application 13/895,620
interlocking features which, in the illustrated embodiment, comprise an
interlock projection and an interlock depression situated between the rings'
inner and outer diameters. (See Chen i-fi-f 10-12, Fig. 1.) As discussed
above, any alleged step-recess configurations in Chen's retaining ring are
created incidentally by the undulating profile of these interlocking features.
The Examiner does not sufficiently show that Chen teaches that such
incidental configurations alone (i.e., without the interlocking features) would
provide a more secure connection in a retaining ring. As such, the Examiner
does not sufficiently show that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify Marohl' s retaining ring in the proposed
manner. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Marohl and Chen.
The rest of the claims on appeal (i.e., claims 20-24 and 26-32)
depend from independent claim 19. (See Appeal Br., Claims App.) The
Examiner's further findings and determinations with respect to these
dependent claims (see Final Action 2-3) do not compensate for the above-
discussed shortcoming in the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 19.
Thus, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent
claims 20-24 and 26-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Marohl and Chen.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 19-24 and 26-32.
REVERSED
5