Haoquan Yan et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 22, 2019

14705430 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2019)

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.
14/705,430 05/06/2015 Haoquan Yan 3575-2US 7384
91286 7590 10/22/2019
Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (Lam)
P.O. Box 828
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303
EXAMINER
KLUNK, MARGARET D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/22/2019 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
sstevens@hdp.com
troymailroom@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte HAOQUAN YAN,1
ROBERT GRIFFITH O'NEILL, RAPHAEL CASAES,
JON MCCHESNEY, and ALEX PATERSON
________________

Appeal 2018-006228
Application 14/705,430
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before MARK NAGUMO, LILAN REN and SHELDON M. MCGEE,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Lam Research Corporation (“Yan”) timely appeals
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection2 of all pending
claims 1–18. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6. We reverse.

1 The applicant under 37 C.F.R. § 1.46 (Application Data Sheet,
filed 6 May 2015), and hence the appellant under 35 U.S.C. § 134, is the real
party in interest, identified as Lam Research Corporation. (Appeal Brief,
filed 15 January 2018 (“Br.”), 3.)
2 Office Action mailed 25 July 2017 (“Office Action”; cited as “OA”),
entered in response to a request for continued examination
filed 10 April 2017, under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114.
Appeal 2018-006228
Application 14/705,430

2
OPINION
A. Introduction3
The subject matter on appeal relates to edge coupling rings (“ECR”)
used in plasma substrate processing systems. (Spec. 1 [0002].) Typically, a
substrate wafer is held on a central pedestal in a processing chamber, where
it is exposed to a plasma for etching, reactive deposition, etc.
The ′430 Specification explains that, “[e]dge coupling rings have been used
to adjust an etch rate and/or etch profile of the plasma near a radially outer
edge of the substrate.” (Id. at 2 [0005].) The Specification explains that
process conditions can be modified by changing the position, shape, profile,
height of the ECR relative to the upper surface of the substrate, etc. (Id.)
As shown in Figures 1 and 2, reproduced on the next page, during
plasma processing, exposed portion 324 of ECR 30 may be eroded, resulting
in distortion of the etching plasma, especially at the periphery of the
substrate wafer (see converging arrows at 48 in Figure 2). Adjusting or
changing the ECR generally has required that the processing chamber be
opened, which is said to be undesirable. (Spec. 2 [0006].) Yan seeks patent
protection for a substrate processing system that is said to allow the position
of the ECR to be adjusted with an actuator without opening the processing
chamber, as shown in Figure 5, on the next page.

3 Application 14/705,430, Moveable edge coupling ring for edge process
control during semiconductor wafer processing, filed 6 May 2015 as a
continuation-in-part of 14/598,943, filed 16 January 2015. We refer to the
“′430 Specification,” which we cite as “Spec.”
4 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, labels to elements are presented in
bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
Appeal 2018-006228
Application 14/705,430

3
{Figure 1 is shown below}

{Figure 1 shows prior art plasma etching with new annular edge coupling
ring portion 32 (annular portions 34 and 36 form other parts of ECR 30)}
{Figure 2 is shown below}

{Figure 2 shows prior art plasma etching with eroded ECR portion 32}
{Figure 5 is shown below}

{Figure 5 shows eroded ECR 72 moved vertically by actuator 80 reduce
distortion of the plasma at the edge of substrate wafer 33}
In a further embodiment, shown in Figures 15 and 17, reproduced on
the next page, lifting ring 1018 (“LR”), which engages edge coupling
ring 1014, is biased by pillar 1060 that is moved vertically by actuator 1064.
(Id. at 18 [0080].) Thus, as shown in Figure 17, eroded ECR 1014 can be
Appeal 2018-006228
Application 14/705,430

4
raised above pedestal 1010 (which comprises electrostatic chuck 1021
comprised of multiple plates) to provide clearance for robot arm 1102, fitted
with holder 1104 for ECR 1014, to replace the old ECR with a new ECR.
{Figure 15 is shown below}

{Figure 15 shows a top plan view of the processing chamber with (from the
center outwards) pedestal 1010, ECR 1014, and LR 1018}
{Figure 17 is shown below}

{Figure 17 shows a cross section of the pedestal (electrostatic chuck,
“ESC”) with ECR 1014, LR 1018, lifting actuator 1064, and robot arm 1102
and holder 1104 (annotations added)}
Appeal 2018-006228
Application 14/705,430

5
As shown in Figure 16, below, after robot arm 1102 and holder 1104
have been moved from the processing region, actuator 1064 is lowered, and
the bottom surface of ECR 1014 is supported by the upper surface of at least
one plate of the pedestal—here, ESC plate 1024.

{Figure 16 shows the ECR and LR in the lowered position of actuator 1064}
Sole independent claim 1 is representative and reads:
A substrate processing system [500], comprising:
a processing chamber [502];
a pedestal [1010] arranged in the processing chamber, the
pedestal including
a baseplate [1032] and
at least one plate [1030, 1024, 1022[5]] arranged on the
baseplate;

5 Yan identifies only element 1022 as an example of the “at least one plate
arranged on the baseplate” recited in claim 1. (Br. 5, ll. 7–8.)
Appeal 2018-006228
Application 14/705,430

6
an edge coupling ring [1014] arranged
adjacent to a radially outer edge of the pedestal,
wherein an inner portion of the edge coupling ring
overlaps the at least one plate [1024];
a lifting ring [1018], wherein
an outer portion of the edge coupling ring [1014]
overlaps the lifting ring [1018]; and
a first actuator [1064] configured to selectively move the
edge coupling ring [1014] to a raised position and a
lowered position relative to the pedestal, wherein,
when the edge coupling ring is in the raised
position [Fig. 17],
a bottom surface of the edge coupling ring [1014] is
above an uppermost surface of the pedestal [1022]
to define a clearance gap between the bottom
surface of the edge coupling ring [1014] and the
uppermost surface of the pedestal [1022],
wherein the gap is
directly below the bottom surface of the edge
coupling ring [1014] and
above an upper surface of the at least one
plate [1022 (1024)], and wherein,
when the edge coupling ring [1014] is in the lowered
position [Fig. 16],
the bottom surface of the edge coupling ring [1014] is
supported by the upper surface of the at least one
plate [1024].
(Claims App., Br. 17; some formatting, emphasis, and bracketed labels to
the Figures and to elements shown in the Figures added.)
Appeal 2018-006228
Application 14/705,430

7
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:6, 7
A. Claims 1–3 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Johnson8 and Yamamoto.9
A1. Claims 4, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
in view of the combined teachings of Johnson, Yamamoto,
and Lanee.10
A2. Claims 6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Johnson, Yamamoto, and
Yudovsky.11
A3 Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
the combined teachings of Johnson, Yamamoto, Lanee, and
Yudovsky.
A4. Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Johnson, Yamamoto, and
Seo.12

6 Examiner’s Answer mailed 4 May 2018 (“Ans.”).
7 Because this application was filed after 16 March 2013, the effective date
of the America Invents Act, we refer to the AIA version of the statute.
8 Wayne L. Johnson, Tunable focus ring for plasma processing, U.S. Patent
Application Publication 2003/0201069 A1 (2003).
9 Takashi Yamamoto, Plasma processing apparatus and method of
manufacturing semiconductor device, U.S. Patent Application Publication
2011/0287631 A1 (2011).
10 Khamsidi Lanee and Gerry Moore, Automated systems and methods for
adapting semiconductor fabrication tools to process wafers of differen.tr
diameters, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0067954 A1 (2009).
11 Joseph Yudovsky et al., Self aligning non contact shadow ring process kit,
U.S. Patent No. 5,869,352 B1 (2003).
12 Hirofumi Seo and Shinichi Hiramatsu, Semiconductor device
manufacturing machine and method for manufacturing a semiconductor
device by using the same manufacturing machine, U.S. Patent No. 6,044,534
(2000).
Appeal 2018-006228
Application 14/705,430

8
A5. Claims 13–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Johnson, Yamamoto, and
Seo, and Steger. 13
B. Discussion
The Board’s findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by
a preponderance of the evidence of record.
The Examiner finds that Johnson describes plasma processing
system 400, a close-up of a portion of which is shown in Figure 5A, below.

{Johnson Figure 5A shows a close up of plasma reactor system 400
(annotations added)}
System 400 comprises work-piece support member 410, which has upper
annular support surface 173 surrounding lower electrode 175, which
supports work-piece wafer 176. System 400 further comprises adjustable

13 Robert J. Steger, Method and apparatus for the compensation of edge ring
wear in a plasma processing chamber, U.S. Patent Application Publication
2004/0053428 A1 (2004).
Appeal 2018-006228
Application 14/705,430

9
focus ring 200 (which the Examiner identifies as the edge control ring
recited in claim 1), ring electrode 210 (which the Examiner identifies as the
recited lift ring) and actuator 430 to raise and lower the focus ring. (OA 2,
¶ 3.) Johnson discloses that ring electrode 210 and focus ring 200 are not
supported by work-piece support member 410, but are supported by
“separate adjustable shafts 420 each having an upper end 420U serving as a
focus ring support surface.” (Johnson 4 [0043].) The Examiner finds that
“Johnson fails to teach the plate in the pedestal,” and that Johnson “fails to
explicitly teach that when the edge coupling ring is raised a bottom of the
ring is above an upper surface of the pedestal to provide a gap directly below
the bottom surface of the edge coupling ring and above the upper surface of
the pedestal.” (OA sentence bridging 2–3.)
The Examiner finds that Yamamoto describes a plasma processing
apparatus in Figure 3(a), shown below, comprising (insulating) plate 6b,
which, with electrode 6a, forms electrostatic chuck 6 on (conductive)
pedestal 2a. Edge ring 5 [elevated by lifter pins 310] is provided, such that
there may be “a gap directly below the ring (5) and the upper surface of the
pedestal (2a).” (OA 3, ll. 7–8.) The Examiner finds further that when ring 5

{Yamamoto Figure 3(a) shows holding stage 2 with lifter pins 310 for
focus ring 5}
Appeal 2018-006228
Application 14/705,430

10
is lowered, it is supported on plate 6b, as shown in Figure 3b (not
reproduced here). (OA 4, l.4.)
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
the system shown in Johnson, Figure 5A, by substituting the vertically
adjustable edge ring arrangement described by Yamamoto, which overlaps
the outer peripheral region of the pedestal. The Examiner points out that
Johnson describes an alternative embodiment, shown in Figure 1A, “in
which the edge ring is above the outer peripheral region of the pedestal.”
(OA 3, ll. 16–17.)
Yan argues, inter alia, that because “the entire focus ring 200 of
Johnson is arranged on the element 210”, the Examiner errs harmfully in
concluding that the combined teachings of Johnson and Yamamoto would
have taught or suggested an edge coupling ring that meets the limitations,
“wherein an inner portion of the edge coupling ring overlaps the at least one
plate,” and “wherein an outer portion of the edge coupling ring overlaps the
lifting ring.” (Br. 9, ll. 8–10; 11, ll. 4–12.)
Yan argues further (Br., para. bridging 8–9 (discussing Johnson);
para. bridging 11–12 (discussing Yamamoto)) that the combined teachings
of the references do not teach or suggest the relations between the edge
coupling ring and the pedestal in either the raised position, “wherein the gap
is directly below the bottom surface of the edge coupling ring and above an
upper surface of the at least one plate”; or, in the lowered position, that “the
bottom surface of the edge coupling ring is supported by the upper surface of
the at least one plate,” as required by claim 1.
Appeal 2018-006228
Application 14/705,430

11
Resolution of this appeal depends on the interpretation of the relations
required by the claim between three elements, namely, the “edge coupling
ring,” the “lifting ring,” and the “at least one plate,” recited in the claim. In
conducting this inquiry, we are guided by the principles that, during
examination, claims are to be read broadly, consistent with the disclosure in
the Specification, as understood by persons having ordinary skill in the art.
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“the PTO applies to the
verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the
words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way
of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description
contained in the applicant’s specification.”). Limitations from preferred
embodiments must not be read into the claims. In re Am. Acad. Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[w]e have cautioned against
reading limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in
the specification.”).
Claim 1 is not a model of clarity and precision.
The pedestal comprises a baseplate and at least one plate arranged on
the baseplate. The claim subsequently refers three times to “the at least one
plate” (emphasis added), once generally, once to “an upper surface of the at
least one plate,” and once to “the upper surface of the at least one plate”
(emphasis added). Yan describes plate 1022 as depicted in Figure 16 as an
example of such a plate (Br. 5, ll. 7–8), but plate 1022 in Figure 16 cannot
be “the at least one plate” referred to subsequently in claim 1 because it is
not overlapped by the edge coupling ring 1014. Rather, plate 1022 and edge
coupling ring 1014 are adjacent to one another in this Figure.
Appeal 2018-006228
Application 14/705,430

12
In any event, the edge coupling ring is “arranged adjacent to a radially
outer edge of the pedestal,” and “an inner portion of the edge coupling ring
overlaps the at least one plate.” This recitation accommodates, but does not
require, that an outer portion of the edge coupling ring project beyond each
plate in the pedestal as depicted in Figure 16. Although the claim requires
that “an outer portion of the edge coupling ring overlaps the lifting ring,” no
other express constraint is placed on the lifting ring, the relation of the lifting
ring to any other component of the claimed substrate processing system, or
the function of the lifting ring. In particular, the plain language of the claim
does not exclude expressly the possibility, pointed out by the Examiner, that
the “the entirety of ring 200 and ring 210 overlap the one plate (6b) of
Yamamoto which means the inner portion of the ring 200 overlaps the one
plate and the outer portion overlaps the lifting ring (210 of Johnson).”
(Ans. 11, l. 20–12, l. 1.) In the Examiner’s words, “[n]ote the claim does not
require only an outer portion to overlap the lifting ring or an inner portion of
the edge ring to be radially inward of the lifting ring.” (Id. at 12, ll. 1–2.)
The final limitation of claim 1 recites, “when the edge coupling ring is
in the lowered position, the bottom surface of the edge coupling ring is
supported by the upper surface of the at least one plate.” The Examiner
maintains that “in the combination the bottom surface of the edge ring can
be considered to be supported by the upper surface of the at least one plate
(note the claim does not require them to be contacting).” (OA 4, ll. 4–7.)
The Examiner’s interpretation has a certain appeal of audacity, bearing in
mind that the foundation of a house can reasonably be considered to
“support” every part of the house above it, including the roof. The
Examiner’s interpretation, however, does not, in our view, consider
Appeal 2018-006228
Application 14/705,430

13
adequately the import of the words “bottom surface” (of the edge coupling
ring) and “upper surface” (of the at least one plate). In one sense they might
be considered redundant, because any two hard (i.e., under ordinary
conditions of use, essentially impenetrable) bodies necessarily have intact
surfaces when one supports the other, even indirectly. It is preferred,
however, to give meaning to every claim term. See, e.g., Merck & Co. v.
Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372, (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A claim
construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim is preferred over
one that does not do so.”) Here, the express recitations that the “bottom
surface of the edge coupling ring” “is supported by” “the upper surface of
the at least one plate” serve to emphasize that one surface directly supports
the other. This appears to be the only embodiment described in the
Specification or illustrated in the drawings. The Examiner does not direct
our attention to any disclosure in the Specification that indicates a broader
interpretation was intended by Yan, or would have been perceived by a
person having ordinary skill in the art.
We conclude that the Examiner has not shown, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that every limitation of claim 1 is met or suggested by the
combined teachings of Johnson and Yamamoto. The Examiner makes no
findings regarding further limitations recited in the dependent claims or
further disclosures in the other cited prior art that cure this defect. We
therefore reverse all the appealed rejections for obviousness.
Appeal 2018-006228
Application 14/705,430

14
C. Conclusion
In summary:
Claims
Rejected Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 7 § 103: Johnson and Yamamoto 1–3, 7
4, 9, 10
§ 103: Johnson,
Yamamoto, and
Lanee
4, 9, 10
6, 8
§ 103: Johnson,
Yamamoto, and
Yudovsky
6, 8
5
§ 103: Johnson,
Yamamoto, Lanee,
and Yudovsky
5
11, 12 § 103: Johnson, Yamamoto, and Seo 11, 12
13–18
§ 103: Johnson,
Yamamoto, Seo, and
Steger
13–18
Overall Outcome 1–18 1–18

REVERSED