Harmeet Singh

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 6, 2019

14290542 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 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.
14/290,542 05/29/2014 Harmeet Singh 2129-2US 6699
91286 7590 08/06/2019
Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (Lam)
P.O. Box 828
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303
EXAMINER
PAIK, SANG YEOP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/06/2019 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 HARMEET SINGH
___________

Appeal 2018-003956
Application 14/290,542
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–8, 11, 14, and 17–20. Claims 9, 10, 12, 13, 15,
and 16 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Lam Research Corporation (“Appellant”) is the applicant as provided under
37 C.F.R. § 1.46, and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 3
(“Appeal Br.”), filed Oct. 24, 2017.
Appeal 2018-003956
Application 14/290,542

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to “a method of fault detection for
a multi-zone heating plate in a substrate support assembly used to support a
semiconductor substrate in a semiconductor processing apparatus.” Spec.
¶ 5, Fig. 4.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is representative of the
claimed subject matter and recites:
1. A method of fault detection in a substrate support
assembly in a semiconductor processing apparatus, the
method comprising:
arranging a semiconductor substrate on the
substrate support assembly;
supplying power to a plurality of heater zones of a
heating plate of the substrate support assembly via a
plurality of power supply lines such that power is supplied
to each of the heater zones independently of power
supplied to others of the heater zones;
obtaining a measured total heating power of the
power provided by the plurality of heater zones by
independently determining a respective heating power
provided by each of the plurality of heater zones and
calculating a sum of the respective heating powers;
comparing the measured total heating power to a
pre-established total heating power of the plurality of
heater zones; and
if the measured total heating power deviates from
the pre-established total heating power by a pre-
determined margin, triggering an alarm signal;
wherein the measured total heating power is
obtained by measuring a voltage V across each of the one
or more heater zones, measuring a current I flowing
through each of the one or more heater zones, multiplying
V by I , and adding V·I of each of the one or more heater
zones.
Appeal 2018-003956
Application 14/290,542

3
REJECTIONS

I. Claims 1–8, 11, 14, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Burkhart (US 6,469,283 B1,
issued Oct. 22, 2002), Decesari (US 6,700,101 B2, issued Mar.
2, 2004) or Shigeo (JP 7-78668, published Mar. 20, 1995),2
Liao (US 5,702,624, issued Dec. 30, 1997), and Severns (US
6,913,571 B2, issued July 5, 2005), or Cahill (US 3,752,956,
issued Aug. 14, 1973).
II. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Burkhart, Decesari, or Shigeo, Liao, and
Severns, or Cahill, and Hackleman (US 5,414,245, issued May
9, 1995).
III. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Burkhart, Decesari, or Shigeo, Liao, and
Severns, or Cahill, and Kholodenko (US 6,310,755 B1, issued
Oct. 30, 2001).
IV. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Burkhart, Decesari, or Shigeo, Liao, and
Severns, or Cahill, and Carl (US 6,023,052, issued Feb. 8,
2000), or Steinhauser (US 2007/0000918 A1, published Jan. 4,
2007).

2 We derive our understanding of the Shigeo reference from a machine
translation, which is available in the electronic file wrapper of the underlying
application. All references to the text of Shigeo are to portions of the
translation.
Appeal 2018-003956
Application 14/290,542

4
ANALYSIS

Obviousness over Burkhart, Decesari, or Shigeo, Liao, and
Severns, or Cahill
Claims 1–8, 11, 14, and 17

Independent claim 1 is directed to a method of fault detection in a
substrate support assembly including the step of “obtaining a measured total
heating power of the power provided by [a] . . . plurality of heater zones by
independently determining a respective heating power provided by each of
the plurality of heater zones.” Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.) (emphasis
added). The Examiner finds that Burkhart discloses a controller 106 that
“obtains a measured total heating power of the heater zones via a signal
value (S1) which is generated by a temperature controller (104),” “that is
indicative of the voltage supplied to the heater wherein each of the heater
zones is shown proportionally provided with its respective power (see steps
illustrated in Figure 6).” Final Act. 2 (emphasis added)3; see also Ans. 64
(“[S]ignal S1 [of Burkhart] is deemed indicative of the total power supplied
to the plurality of heater zones.”) (emphasis added).
Appellant contends that “claim 1 recites obtaining a measured total
heating power of the power provided by the plurality of heater zones to
which power is supplied by independently determining a respective heating
power provided by each of the plurality of heater zones.” Appeal Br. 11; see
also Reply Br. 3.5 Stated differently, “claim 1 recites obtaining a measured
power provided by the zones, not a desired current or voltage . . . provide[d]

3 Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), dated July 14, 2017.
4 Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), dated Jan. 25, 2018.
5 Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed Mar. 2, 2018.
Appeal 2018-003956
Application 14/290,542

5
to the zones.” Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 3 (“[C]laim 1 recites
measuring power provided by the heater zones, which is not the same as
simply determining power provided to the heater zones.”).
According to Appellant, signal S1 of Burkhart “is not a measurement
of the actual total heating power provided by the heater zones. Rather, the
signal . . . S1 corresponds to a power needed to achieve a desired
temperature, not a measurement of the power that was actually provided.”
Appeal Br. 8; see also id. (“[A] desired power that is attempted using an
appropriate voltage is not analogous to the power provided.”); Reply Br.
2–4.
Burkhart discloses that “[t]he specific magnitude of signal S1
indicates the amount of power or current necessary to achieve a desired
temperature for the pedestal 102. . . . In accordance with the present
invention, the heater controller 106 processes signal S1 and limits the
amount of power or current coupled through wires 114 to the resistive heater
112.” Burkhart 3:31–33, 36–39 (emphasis added), Fig. 3. Burkhart also
discloses that “[t]he heater controller 106 has circuitry for limiting the
amount of current and/or power provided to the pedestal assembly, for
controlling which zone should be provided with current and/or power,
proportional zone control of the current and/or power” and that “a zone
control module 318 receives the control signal S1 from the temperature
controller 104. The zone control module 318 then makes a determination as
to how much power is to be provided to the heater 112.” Id. at 4:25–28
(emphasis added), 32–35 (emphasis added), Fig. 3.
Based on Burkhart’s disclosure, we agree with Appellant that signal
S1 of Burkhart “is at best a control signal used to adjust temperature, by
Appeal 2018-003956
Application 14/290,542

6
adjusting voltage or current, when a measured temperature is not the same as
a desired temperature, and is not a measurement of a measured total heating
power of the power provided by the plurality of heater zones.” Reply Br.
3–4 (emphasis added). In other words, signal S1 of Burkhart “is not a
measured total heating power of power provided by the heater zones.” Id. at
2–3; see also Appeal Br. 7–12.
We further agree with Appellant that nowhere in the description of the
operation of Figure 6 does Burkhart “disclose obtaining a measured total
power actually provided by the different zones, much less independently
determining a respective heating power provided by each of the plurality of
heater zones.” Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis added). Rather, Burkhart describes
power being “applied to” the heating zones. See Burkhart 6:8–48, Fig. 6.
For these reasons, the Examiner fails to establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that Burkhart discloses the “obtaining” step of the method of claim
1.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant implies that in the Answer, the
Examiner “suggests that Decesari and Shigeo also disclose obtaining a
measured total power of a plurality of heater zones, purported[ly] making up
for this deficiency of Burkhart.” Reply Br. 4. However, upon review of the
Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner appears to rely on the teachings of
Decesari and Shigeo for disclosing the “comparing” step of claim 1, similar
to that of the Examiner’s findings in the Final Office Action. See Ans. 6
(“Decesari shows that its power management compares the total level with a
predetermined power level” and “Shigeo also shows comparing the
compound value by the reference value including current wherein such
Appeal 2018-003956
Application 14/290,542

7
compound value would indicate the total amount that is compared with the
reference value.”) Compare Final Act. 3.
Nonetheless, we agree with Appellant that similar to Burkhart,
Decesari “uses a controlled value, which is based on a desired power, to
calculate a power ‘supplied to’ a heating element” and Shigeo “discloses
comparing current and voltage applied to a heater.” See Reply Br. 5; see
also Decesari 2:56–62, 3:1–2; Shigeo ¶ 7.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–8, 11, 14, and 17 as unpatentable over
Burkhart, Decesari, or Shigeo, Liao, and Severns, or Cahill.

Obviousness over Burkhart, Decesari, or Shigeo, Liao, and Severns, or
Cahill and any of Hackleman, Kholodenko, Carl, or Steinhauser
Claims 18–20
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 18–20 are each
based on the same unsupported findings discussed above for independent
claim 1. See Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner does not rely on the teachings of
Hackleman, Kholodenko, Carl, or Steinhauser to remedy the deficiencies
discussed above. Accordingly, for reasons similar to those discussed for
claim 1, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims
18–20.

DECISION
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–8, 11,
14, and 17–20.
REVERSED