Ex Parte Yoshikawa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2018

13502829 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2018)

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.
13/502,829 05/09/2012 Wataru Yoshikawa BPL0164US 6133
23413 7590 03/02/2018
TANTOR TOT RTTRN T T P
EXAMINER
20 Church Street DHINGRA, RAKESH KUMAR
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2018 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WATARU YOSHIKAWA,
KAZUKI MOYAMA, NOBUYUKI OKAYAMA,
KENJI SUDOU, and YASUHIRO OTSUKA
Appeal 2017-001381
Application 13/502,829
Technology Center 1700
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, GEORGE C. BEST, and
MERRELL C. CASHION JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1—9 of Application 13/502,829
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. (February 1, 2016). Claim
1 was also rejected on the non-statutory ground of obviousness-type double
patenting. Id. Appellants1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
1 Tokyo Electron Limited is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-001381
Application 13/502,829
BACKGROUND
The ’829 Application describes a sample table that holds a substrate to
be processed. Spec. 1. The sample table is used in a microwave plasma
processing apparatus that performs a plasma process on the substrate. Id.
Claim 1 is representative of the ’829 Application’s claims and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix:
1. A sample table which holds a substrate to be processed,
the sample table comprising:
an adsorption plate which has a first surface contacting
the substrate and a second surface which is an opposite side of
the first surface, and has an electrode therein to electrostatically
adsorb the substrate on the first surface;
a supporting substrate which has a top surface having a
first concave recess, wherein the first concave recess includes a
circular bottom surface portion and a tapered portion around the
circular bottom surface portion, wherein the circular bottom
surface portion has a predetermined diameter and the tapered
portion forms a predetermined angle with the circular bottom
surface portion; and
an adhesive disposed between the first concave recess
and the second surface, wherein the adsorption plate is adhered
to the circular bottom surface portion and the tapered portion to
approximately conform to the first concave recess such that the
first surface of the adhered adsorption plate forms a second
concave recess.
Appeal Br. 21.
2
Appeal 2017-001381
Application 13/502,829
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains2 the following rejections:
1. Claims 1—3 and 6—8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Higuma3 and Migita.4
Answer 3—6.
2. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Higuma, Migita, Lue,5 and Imai.6 Answer 6—8.
3. Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Higuma, Migita, and
S chmitt.7 Answer 8—10.
DISCUSSION
Appellants only present substantive arguments with respect to the
rejection of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 8—19. Claims 2—9 are alleged to be
patentable solely because they depend from claim 1. Id. at 19. Accordingly,
we limit our discussion to claim 1. Claims 2—9 will stand or fall with
claim 1.
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the obviousness-type double patenting
rejection. Advisory Act. 2 (April 27, 2016).
3 JP 2008-243973, published October 9, 2008. The Examiner, without
objection from Appellants, relied upon US 2009/0101284 Al, published
April 23, 2009, as the English-language counterpart.
4 US 2007/0144442 Al, published June 28, 2007.
5 US 5,761,023, issued June 2, 1998.
6 US 2006/0021705 Al, published February 2 2006.
7 US 6,228,438 Bl, issued May 8, 2001.
3
Appeal 2017-001381
Application 13/502,829
Claim 1 is directed to a sample table which holds a substrate for
processing. Figure 2 of the ’829 Application, reproduced below, illustrates
an embodiment of the claimed sample table.
2
21 a
{Figure 2 is a lateral cross-sectional view
schematically showing a sample table according to
an embodiment of the claimed invention.}
Figure 2 shows sample table 2. Spec. 9. Sample table 2 includes
supporting substrate 21, which includes cooling channels 21a and an
adsorption plate 23. Id. The upper surface of supporting substrate 21
defines a first concave recess. Id. Adhesive 22 is used to attach adsorption
plate 23 to the upper surface of supporting substrate 21 so that the top
surface of adsorption plate 23 defines a second concave recess. Id.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness for the rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 9.
The Examiner rejected claim 1 as unpatentable over the combination
of Higuma and Migita. Answer 3—6. The Examiner found that Higuma
describes or suggests every limitation of claim 1 except that it “do[es] not
explicitly teach that the first surface of the adhered adsorption plate forms a
second concave recess.” Id. at 4. The Examiner also found that Migita
describes or suggests the second concave recess form between a substrate
4
Appeal 2017-001381
Application 13/502,829
supporting surface of the adsorption plate and the substrate. Id. (citing
Migita Fig. IB; H 26—27). We reproduce Migita’s Figure IB below:
101
{Migita’s Figure IB is a schematic cross-sectional
view of a sample table. Migita 112.}
The Examiner found that Migita’s susceptor 101 corresponds to the
claimed sample table and comprises an adsorption plate 102 that is adhered
to a supporting substrate 107 by an adhesive. Id. (citing Migita H 23, 27).
The Examiner further found that Migita describes a concave recess, which is
defined by the top surface of adsorption plate 102. Id. In Migita’s Figure
IB, the recess is located between substrate W and the upper surface of
adsorption plate 102. Id.
The Examiner found that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Higuma’s
adsorption plate to form a second concave recess in view of Migita’s
teaching that such a structure provides proper electrostatic clamping of the
substrate and result in improved uniformity of substrate processing. Id. at 5.
5
Appeal 2017-001381
Application 13/502,829
Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 should be reversed
because the Examiner did not establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Appeal Br. 9. In particular, Appellants argue that the combination of
Higuma and Migita neither describes or suggests the claim limitation
“wherein the adsorption plate is adhered to the circular bottom surface
portion and the tapered portion to approximately conform to the first
concave recess such that the first surface of the adhered adsorption plate
forms a second concave recess.” Id. at 13—14. Appellants’ argument relies
upon the following analysis:
In this regard, neither Higuma nor Migita discloses the
claimed features that ‘the supporting substrate (21) is concaved
(i.e., the first concave recess (21b)) and thereby the adsorption
plate (23) (which includes the electrode for exerting
electrostatic force) is concaved conformed fsicl to the first
concave recess.
That is, (a) Higuma discloses that (the adsorption plate’s
upper surface is plainer and) only the supporting substrate’s
upper surface is concaved, and
(b) Migita discloses (that the supporting substrate’s upper
surface is plainer and) only the adsorption plate’s upper surface
is concaved;
(c) however, these references have no
recognition/working principles that the second concave recess
(of the adsorption plate) is made due to the conformation to the
first concave recess (of the supporting substrate).
Id.
This argument is not persuasive because it fails to address the
substance of the rejection. Claim 1 is an apparatus claim. Structural claims,
such as claims directed to an article or apparatus, must be distinguished from
the prior art in terms of structure. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478
(Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein; see also In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844,
6
Appeal 2017-001381
Application 13/502,829
848 (CCPA 1959) (“Claims drawn to an apparatus must distinguish from the
prior art in terms of structure rather than function.” (citation omitted)); In re
Gardiner, 171 F.2d 313, 315-16 (CCPA 1948) (“It is trite to state that the
patentability of apparatus claims must be shown in the structure claimed and
not merely upon a use, function, or result thereof.”). Appellants’ arguments
have not persuaded us that the Examiner reversibly erred by finding that the
combination of Higuma and Migita describes or suggests each structural
limitation recited in claim 1.
Appellants also argue that the subject matter of claim 1 is patently
distinct from the combination of Higuma and Migita because the second
concave recess arises from the process of conforming the adsorption plate to
the surface of the first concave recess. Appeal Br. 13—14; Reply Brief 5—9.
In particular, Appellants argue that creation of the second concave recess in
the upper surface of Higuma’s adsorption plate as described or suggested by
Migita would be a difficult and expensive process. See Reply Br. 5—9.
These arguments are not relevant to the subject matter of claim 1 because
claim 1 is an apparatus claim8. Thus, the particular way in which the
structure is created is not relevant.
Appellants further argue that the rejection should be reversed because
the proposed combination of Higuma and Migita changes the working
principles of those references. Appeal Br. 14—15. This argument is not
persuasive because Higuma, Migita, and the claimed invention described in
electrostatic chuck for use in semiconductor manufacturing.
8 We, however, do not hold that such arguments would be irrelevant to a
claim directed to the method of making the sample table described in the
’829 Application.
7
Appeal 2017-001381
Application 13/502,829
Appellants also argue that the Examiner erred by stating that Migita’s
plate member 102 has a uniform thickness. Appeal Br. 16. This argument is
not persuasive because Migita expressly states that the thickness of the
adhesion plate — i.e., the thickness of the insulating layer from the
supporting surface 103 to the electrodes 104a and 1046 — can be made
uniform. Migita 125. Migita further goes on to describe how adsorption
plate 102 can be manufactured with internal electrodes. Id. 147.
We have considered Appellants’ other arguments and find them to be
similarly unpersuasive.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejection of claims 1—9
of the ’829 Application.
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
8