Ex Parte White et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 7, 2011

11561463 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 7, 2011)

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.
11/561,463 11/20/2006 John M. White 011448 DISPLAY/AKT 7567
44257 7590 02/07/2011
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX
3040 POST OAK BOULEVARD, SUITE 1500
HOUSTON, TX 77056
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, HOAI AN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2858
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/07/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JOHN M. WHITE and CARL SORENSEN
____________________

Appeal 2009-013708
Application 11/561,463
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-013708
Application 11/561,463

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:

1. A processing chamber, comprising:

a chamber body;

a substrate support disposed in the chamber body;

a ground path member coupled between the substrate support and the
chamber body; and

a sensor positioned to sense a metric indicative of current passing
through the ground path member.

Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 10, 15-18, 21, 22, and 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Blonigan (US 7,083,702 B2) and Yamamoto (US 7,202,690 B2).2

2 The Examiner presents five additional grounds of rejection covering
claims 4, 8, 11-14, 19, 20, 23, and 25. These additional rejections all rely on
the § 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 9, 16, and 21. Separate
patentability is not argued for claims 4, 8, 11-14, 19, 20, 23, and 25. “A
statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(last sentence).

Appeal 2009-013708
Application 11/561,463

3
Examiner’s Findings
In making each of the rejections on appeal, the Examiner relies upon
Blonigan as teaching a plasma CVD system 100 including a grounded
chamber 102 for processing a substrate, and a ground curtain 184 for
grounding a substrate support assembly 138 to the chamber body through an
RF current return path (Ans. 3-4). The Examiner relies upon Yamamoto as
teaching a substrate inspection device and method using sensors to measure
current passing through a ground path member (Ans. 4). The Examiner then
determines that it would have been obvious to modify Blonigan’s RF current
return path by grounding the substrate in grounded chamber 102 with
Yamamoto’s teaching of sensor(s) to measure current passing through a
ground path member in order to detect discontinuities and open or short
circuit states of substrate wirings (Ans. 4-5).

Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3,
5-7, 9, 10, 15-18, 21, 22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Blonigan and Yamamoto because (i)
substrate inspection as taught by Yamamoto is not analogous to sensing
current in a ground return path of a processing chamber as in the recited
invention (i.e., there is no motivation to combine), (ii) modifying
Yamamoto’s inspection device with Blonigan’s grounded chamber would
defeat Blonigan’s purpose of shortening a return path by using a low
impedance ground curtain, and (iii) Yamamoto’s sensor (e.g., laser beam
and/or DC power source) would interfere with Blonigan’s plasma generation
(App. Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 3-4).
Appeal 2009-013708
Application 11/561,463

4
Issue on Appeal
Has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-25 as being obvious over
Bonigan and Yamamoto?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiners’ rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants’ above conclusion. We adopt as our
own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner.
When combining references to show non-obviousness under § 103,
the Examiner must meet a two-step test for analogous art, as set forth by the
Federal Circuit in In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006):
The analogous-art test requires that the Board show that a
reference is either [1] in the field of the applicant’s endeavor or
[2] is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the
inventor was concerned in order to rely on that reference as a
basis for rejection. References are selected as being reasonably
pertinent to the problem based on the judgment of a person
having ordinary skill in the art.

Kahn, 441 F.3d at 986-87.
It is necessary to consider “common sense … in deciding in which
fields a person of ordinary skill would reasonably be expected to look for a
solution to the problem facing the inventor.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Appeal 2009-013708
Application 11/561,463

5
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, 103 likely
bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has
been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill
in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices
in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill.

KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Blonigan specifically teaches the need to increase the useful life of the
ground curtain, and to prevent repeated stress of the ground curtain which
can cause cracks and necessitate replacement of the ground curtain (col. 6, ll.
59-64). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellants’ invention
would have been motivated to use a sensor to detect cracks or discontinuities
in the ground curtain of Blonigan. Such an ordinarily skilled artisan would
have found Yamamoto’s substrate inspection device and method reasonably
pertinent to the problem with which Appellants and Blonigan were both
concerned: that of detecting cracks or discontinuities in a ground path
member (or ground curtain) to determine if the ground member needs
replacement (see Ans. 14-16). See Kahn, supra.
Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 3) that
incorporating Yamamoto’s inspection device teachings with Blonigan’s
grounded chamber would defeat Blonigan’s purpose of shortening a return
path by using a low impedance ground curtain, or otherwise interfere with
plasma generation, are not convincing. We agree with the Examiner (Ans.
15-16) that insertion of a sensor and ampere meter, as taught by Yamamoto,
into the ground curtain and RF current return path of Blonigan would not
Appeal 2009-013708
Application 11/561,463

6
significantly increase impedance in the return path and would have been
reasonable and within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of Appellants’ invention. See KSR, supra.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have not established that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-25 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 1-25 are not patentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
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)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

kis

PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX
3040 POST OAK BOULEVARD, SUITE 1500
HOUSTON, TX 77056