Ex Parte Zhao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2013

12684039 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
12/684,039 01/07/2010 Maosheng Zhao 007660.C02/DSM/LOW
K/MDG
4370
44257 7590 12/19/2013
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX
3040 POST OAK BOULEVARD, SUITE 1500
HOUSTON, TX 77056
EXAMINER
CROWELL, ANNA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2013 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 MAOSHENG ZHAO,
JUAN CARLOS ROCHA-ALVAREZ, INNA SHMURUN,
SOOVA SEN, MAO D. LIM,
SHANKAR VENKATARAMAN, and JU-HYUNG LEE
____________________

Appeal 2012-011198
Application 12/684,039
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.

TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1-3 and 5-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2012-011198
Application 12/684,039
2

The claims are directed to a chamber for processing semiconductor
substrates (Claim 1) and a semiconductor substrate processing system
including the chamber (Claim 11). Figure 1 depicts an apparatus containing
the chamber, and is reproduced below:

Figure 1 is a schematic diagram of a CVD reactor 100

Claim 1 is reproduced below with reference numerals inserted for an
understanding of an embodiment of the claimed invention.
1. A chamber [102] for processing semiconductor
substrates, comprising:
a chamber wall [sidewall 158] defining an enclosure ;
a plurality of electrodes comprising a showerhead
electrode [120], a substrate support electrode [126], and a
Appeal 2012-011198
Application 12/684,039
3
blocking plate electrode [164], each electrically isolated from at
least one of the other electrodes, at least one of the electrodes
disposed inside the enclosure; and
a switch [180] with at least two positions [SW1 and
SW2], each position selectably coupling a different pair of the
electrodes together.
(Claims App’x at Br. 23.)
According to the Specification, switch position SW1 provides a short
circuit between the lid 112 (together with the blocking plate 164) (contact A)
and the showerhead 120 (contact C) (Spec. ¶ 0033). In the SW1 position,
the chamber is configured for performing a chemical vapor deposition
(CVD) process or a plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD)
process (Spec. ¶ 0036). When performing PECVD, the plasma is generated
in the reaction volume 154 (id.).
Position SW2 provides a short circuit between the showerhead 120
(contact C) and the ground terminal 184 (contact B) (Spec. ¶ 0033). In the
SW2 position, the lid 112 (together with the blocking plate 164) and the
showerhead 120 form a pair of spaced apart electrodes (Spec. ¶ 0037). In
the SW2 position, the chamber is configured for a cleaning process (id.). In
the cleaning process, the plasma is generated in the gas mixing plenum 152
and not in the reaction volume 154 (id.).
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
A. Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Yanagida1;
B. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Yanagida in view of Morita2;

1 Yanagida, JP 04-132219 A, pub. May 6, 1992.
2 Morita et al., US 5,815,366, patented Sept. 29, 1998.
Appeal 2012-011198
Application 12/684,039
4
C. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Yanagida in view of Mumola.3
D. Claims 11, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Yanagida in view of Sasaki.4
E. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Yanagida in view of Sasaki, and further in view of Morita.
F. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Yanagida in view of Sasaki, and further in view of Mumola.
G. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Sasaki in view of Shinagawa.5
H. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Sasaki in view of Shinagawa, and further in view of Masumoto.6
I. Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Sasaki in view of Shinagawa, and further in view of Morita.
J. Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Sasaki in view of Shinagawa, and further in view of Mumola.
Appellants do not argue any claim apart from the others for any of the
rejections. Therefore, for each rejection we select a single claim as
representative to decide the issues on appeal.

OPINION
Rejection A
With regard to the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, and 7-9 as anticipated by
Yanagida, we select claim 1 as representative to decide the issue on appeal.

3 Mumola, US 5,292,400, patented Mar. 8, 1994.
4 Sasaki et al., JP 10-177993, pub. June 30, 1998.
5 Shinagawa et al., JP 01-192118, pub. Aug. 2, 1989.
6 Masumoto, JP 06-053176, pub. Feb. 25, 1994.
Appeal 2012-011198
Application 12/684,039
5
We state the issue as follows: Have Appellants identified a reversible
error in the Examiner’s finding that Yanagida’s switch 11a, 11b has at least
two positions, each position selectably coupling a different pair of the
electrodes together (compare Ans. 5 with Br. 10)?
Yanagida is directed to a plasma treatment device useful for dry
etching, plasma CVD, etc. (Yanagida translation, 4.)
As pointed out by Appellants, Yanagida teaches operating the device
in two modes.
In the first mode, grid electrode 12 (showerhead electrode) and upper
electrode 2 (blocking plate electrode) abut each other, and are insulated from
chamber 1a and wafer-mounting electrode 5 (substrate support electrode)
(Yanagida, Abs.). As shown in Figure 1(A), the first switch position (Fig.
1(A) at 11a, 11b) grounds electrode 12 via electrode 2 while substrate
support electrode 5 is coupled to power. The Examiner finds that this
configuration results in a first pair of electrode coupling (Ans. 15).
Appellants do not dispute this finding. (No reply brief was filed.)
To operate in the second mode, Yanagida teaches lowering electrode
12 and switching the switch 11a to connect electrode 2 to power and
switching 11b to connect support electrode 5 to ground as shown in Figure
1(B). The Examiner finds that this creates a second pair of coupling
between electrodes 2 and 5 (Ans. 15). Appellants do not dispute this
finding. (No reply brief was filed.)
The Examiner’s position is reasonable and not challenged by
Appellants. A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s
finding that Yanagida describes a chamber for processing semiconductor
substrates including all the structures required by claim 1 including a switch
Appeal 2012-011198
Application 12/684,039
6
with at least two positions, each position selectably coupling a different pair
of electrodes together.
Rejections B and C
With regard to the rejection of claim 6 as obvious over Yanagida in
view of Morita, and the rejection of claim 10 as obvious over Yanagida in
view of Mumola, Appellants do not advance any further argument over and
above the argument addressed above. Therefore, Appellants have not
identified a reversible error in either of these rejections.
Rejection D
With respect to the rejection of claims 11, 12, and 14-16 as obvious
over Yanagida in view of Sasaki, Appellants contend that Sasaki does not
teach or suggest a showerhead electrode, or any reason to use Sasaki’s
switch 9 to connect to a showerhead electrode (Br. 14).
This argument does not address the Examiner’s rejection. The
Examiner relies upon Yanagida for its teachings of a switch and showerhead
electrode and relies upon Sasaki as evidence with regard to a teaching of
frequency and power levels. Appellants have not identified a reversible
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 12, and 14-16.
Rejections E and F
With regard to the rejection of claim 13 as obvious over Yanagida in
view of Sasaki and Morita, and the rejection of claim 17 as obvious over
Yanagida in view of Sasaki and Mumola, Appellants do not advance any
further argument over and above the argument addressed above. Therefore,
Appellants have not identified a reversible error in either of these rejections.
Rejection G
With regard to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, and 14-16 as
obvious over Sasaki in view of Shinagawa, we again select claim 1 as
Appeal 2012-011198
Application 12/684,039
7
representative for deciding the issue on appeal. The issue is: Have
Appellants identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s finding of a reason
to incorporate a showerhead electrode into the apparatus of Sasaki and to
modify the switch of Sasaki based upon the teachings of Shinagawa
(compare Ans. 10 with Br. 17-18)?
Sasaki’s device includes a chamber for processing semiconductor
substrates with a lower electrode 2 (substrate support electrode), an upper
electrode 3 (blocking plate electrode 3), and a switch (Sasaki, Fig. 1; Abs.;
¶ 0010). In a first position, the switch selectably couples the lower electrode
2 and housing 8 and a cleaning gas is introduced through opening 4 while
generating plasma 11b to clean shielding members 5 and 6 (Sasaki ¶¶ 0010-
11; Fig. 1). In a second position, the switch selectably couples the lower
electrode 2 to electrode 3 in order to generate plasma 11a and treat the
semiconductor substrate 1 (Sasaki, ¶ 0012; Fig. 2).
Shinagawa’s device includes a chamber for processing semiconductor
substrates, with three electrodes, i.e., a first electrode 22 (blocking plate
electrode), second electrode 23 (showerhead electrode), and a third electrode
24 (substrate support electrode) (Shinagawa, Abs.; Fig. 1(a)). Like Sasaki,
Shinagawa has a switch that in one position couples two electrodes
(showerhead electrode and substrate support electrode) to perform the
semiconductor substrate treatment. However, instead of having only one
electrode in the upper portion of the chamber, Shinagawa has two, i.e.,
Shinagawa has a blocking plate electrode 22 that is separate from the
showerhead electrode 23. Shinagawa couples those two upper electrodes
(blocking plate electrode 22 and showerhead electrode 23) in order to
generate a plasma between those two electrodes (Shinagawa. Abs.; Fig.
Appeal 2012-011198
Application 12/684,039
8
1(b)). Therefore, Shinagawa, by switching the coupling of electrodes,
generates plasma in two locations within the chamber.
Appellants contend that “there is no reason taught or suggested in
either Sasaki or Shinagawa to import the showerhead electrode or switching
mechanism of Shinagawa into the apparatus of Sasaki.” (Br. 17.) However,
the Examiner has articulated specific reasons for the modifications, i.e., to
enhance gas distribution and to generate plasma in different regions of the
chamber for different processes such as cleaning gas plenum, cleaning upper
chamber portions, or processing the substrate using a remote plasma (Ans.
10). Both Sasaki and Shinagawa teach coupling different electrodes together
to generate plasma in different regions (Sasaki, Figs 1-2; Shinagawa, Figs.
1(a) and 1(b)). It appears that those of ordinary skill in the art understood
the functions of the various electrode configurations of the prior art and how
to couple them to generate plasma in various desired locations to obtain
predictable results.
A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding of a
reason to combine.
Rejections H-J
With regard to the rejection of claim 3 as obvious over Sasaki in view
of Shinagawa and Masumoto; the rejection of claims 6 and 13 over Sasaki in
view of Shinagawa and Morita; and the rejection of claims 10 and 17 over
Sasaki in view of Shinagawa and Mumola, Appellants do not advance any
further argument over and above the argument addressed above (Br. 19-21).
Therefore, Appellants have not identified a reversible error in either of these
rejections.
Appeal 2012-011198
Application 12/684,039
9

CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejections.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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).

AFFIRMED
bar