Ex Parte Yoshioka et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2012

11680118 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2012)

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.
11/680,118 02/28/2007 Ken Yoshioka 520.47253X00 4671
20457 7590 11/21/2012
ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP
1300 NORTH SEVENTEENTH STREET
SUITE 1800
ARLINGTON, VA 22209-3873
EXAMINER
FORD, NATHAN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/21/2012 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KEN YOSHIOKA, YUTAKA OMOTO, MAMORU YAKUSHIJI,
TSUNEHIKO TSUBONE, and KAZUNORI NAKAMOTO
____________

Appeal 2011-012603
Application 11/680,118
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL

Ken Yoshioka, et al., the Appellants,1 seek our review under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-12.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as “Hitachi High-
Technologies Corporation of Japan.” Appeal Brief filed April 25, 2011
(“App. Br.”) at 1.
2 We heard oral arguments from the Appellants’ counsel on November 15,
2012, a written transcript of which will be entered in due course.
Appeal 2011-012603
Application 11/680,118

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Appellants claim a plasma processing apparatus, which is suitable
for etching or chemical vapor deposition (CVD). Specification (“Spec.”) 1,
ll. 11-16. Representative claim 1 is reproduced below (with disputed
limitations shown in italics):
1. A plasma processing apparatus comprising:
a processing chamber to be depressurized and exhausted;
a sample stage provided in the processing chamber and
having a sample placement surface on which a substrate to be
processed is placed;
a plasma generating device for generating plasma in the
processing chamber;
a high frequency bias power supply that applies bias high
frequency power to a base member disposed inside of the
sample stage;
a heat transfer gas supply system for supplying heat
transfer gas to the sample placement surface; and
a coolant channel portion provided inside of the base
member and through which a coolant circulates; wherein the
apparatus further comprises:
a heater layer provided between the sample placement
surface and the coolant channel portion of the base member of
the sample stage, wherein the heater layer is formed so as to be
divided into three regions in a radius direction of the sample
placement surface including a center region, an edge region
having a ring shape at an outer periphery of the heater layer,
and a middle region having a ring shape disposed between the
center and edge regions;
Appeal 2011-012603
Application 11/680,118

3
a plurality of temperature monitors provided in the
sample stage and in a position corresponding to each of the
three regions of the heater layer;
a substrate temperature estimating unit that outputs
estimated substrate temperatures corresponding to each of the
three regions using outputs of the temperature monitors, heat
from the plasma and heater power in each of the three regions
on a basis of a physical heat balance model of the three regions
with respect to the substrate and the sample stage; and
a substrate temperature controller that controls the heater
power in each of the three regions based upon a result of
comparison between outputs of the substrate temperature
estimating unit and target temperatures.
App. Br. 18-19 (Claims App’x).
The Examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
follows:
I. Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, and 12 as unpatentable over Tsukamoto3
in view of Schwarm4 and either Kanno5 or Buchberger;6
II. Claims 3 and 7 as unpatentable over Tsukamoto in view of
Schwarm and either Kanno or Buchberger, and further in view
of Tanaka;7 and

3 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0027169 A1 published February
9, 2006.
4 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0049376 A1 published March
13, 2003.
5 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0045813 A1 published March
11, 2004.
6 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0091541 A1 published April 26,
2007.
Appeal 2011-012603
Application 11/680,118

4
III. Claims 2, 9, and 10 as unpatentable over Tsukamoto in view of
Schwarm and either Kanno or Buchberger, and further in view
of Keum.8

DISCUSSION

Unless arguments in support of separate patentability are provided in
accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), all claims subject to each
rejection stand or fall together. Also, to the extent that arguments against
Rejections II and III rely upon the same arguments offered against Rejection
I, our decision as to the claims subject to Rejection I apply equally to the
claims subject to Rejections II and III.
We have considered each of the Appellants’ arguments but do not find
any of them persuasive to show reversible error on the part of the Examiner.
In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
With respect to the claim 1, the Appellants contend that “Tsukamoto .
. . only specifically discloses two thermal zones” (underlining omitted).
App. Br. 9. Tsukamoto, however, explicitly discloses “at least two thermal
zones arranged within the substrate holder . . . in order to provide
temperature profile control and/or rapid adjustment of the substrate
temperature.” ¶ [0022] (emphasis added). The recitation “at least two”

7 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0188240 A1 published August
24, 2006.
8 U.S. Patent 6,720,533 B2 issued April 13, 2004.
Appeal 2011-012603
Application 11/680,118

5
includes numbers more than two, such as three. Indeed, as pointed out by
the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
that increasing the number of thermal zones, with associated temperature
sensors, in Tsukamoto’s substrate holder would enhance the degree of
temperature control. Ans. 5.
The Appellants also appear to be arguing that Tsukamoto does not
disclose a heater layer divided into regions of circular shapes, as required by
claim 1. App. Br. 9-10. Tsukamoto, however, discloses that the substrate
may be a “semiconductor wafer,” which is known to have a circular shape
and known to be processed on a circular substrate holder, as evidenced by
Schwarm. Tsukamoto ¶ [0024]; Schwarm’s Figures 1 and 4. Thus, when
implemented in an apparatus for a semiconductor wafer, Tsukamoto’s
thermal zones would necessarily be in the form of concentric circular
regions.
With respect to claim 8, the Appellants’ only argument in the Appeal
Brief is that “Tsukamoto . . . provides no disclosure or teaching” of the
limitations recited in the claim. App. Br. 10; see also Reply Brief filed
August 2, 2011 at 4-5. Such a skeletal argument as offered here is not an
argument in support of separate patentability pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii) and therefore need not be addressed. In re Lovin, 652 F.3d
1349, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Even if the Appellants’ argument regarding claim 8 is an argument in
support of separate patentability, we would not find it persuasive. The
Appeal 2011-012603
Application 11/680,118

6
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that “since the substrate
supporting surface [described in Tsukamoto] is an electrostatic chuck[,] it
would be of dielectric material.” Ans. 8; Reply Br. 4. Although the
Appellants allege that Tsukamoto does not describe the particular
arrangement of elements as recited in claim 8, that allegation is not
accompanied by any reasonably specific discussion as to the scope and
content of Tsukamoto and why they are insufficient to account for the
disputed limitations.
None of the Appellants’ other arguments at pages 12-16 of the Appeal
Brief are effective to demonstrate reversible error on the part of the
Examiner because they either attack the references individually or merely
point out what a claim recites.
For these reasons, we uphold each of the Examiner’s rejections.

SUMMARY

The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, and 12 as
unpatentable over Tsukamoto in view of Schwarm and either Kanno or
Buchberger is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 7 as unpatentable over
Tsukamoto in view of Schwarm and either Kanno or Buchberger, and
further in view of Tanaka is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 9, and 10 as unpatentable over
Tsukamoto in view of Schwarm and either Kanno or Buchberger, and
Appeal 2011-012603
Application 11/680,118

7
further in view of Keum 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).
AFFIRMED

sld