Lam Research Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 1, 2021

2021000172 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2021)

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.
15/143,338 04/29/2016 Ishtak Karim LAMRP274/3985-1US 9103
83422 7590 12/01/2021
WEAVER AUSTIN VILLENEUVE & SAMPSON - LAMR/NOVL
P.O. BOX 70250
OAKLAND, CA 94612-0250
EXAMINER
HORNING, JOEL G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1712
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/01/2021 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):
USPTO@wavsip.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ISHTAK KARIM, KIYONG CHO,
ADRIEN LAVOIE, JASWINDER GULIANI,
PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR, and JUN QIAN
Appeal 2021-000172
Application 15/143,338
Technology Center 1700
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–17 and 24–31. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Lam
Research Corporation. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2021-000172
Application 15/143,338

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal
and is set forth below:
1. A method of depositing a material on at least two substrates
concurrently processed in separate stations of a multi-station
deposition apparatus, the method comprising:
(a) providing a first substrate in a first station and a second
substrate in a second station of the deposition apparatus;
(b) concurrently depositing the material on the first substrate in
the first station and on the second substrate in the second station,
wherein control system parameters are set to produce identical or
nearly identical deposition conditions in the first and second
stations, but yet a thicker layer of the material is produced on the
first substrate in the first station than on the second substrate in
the second station;
(c) adjusting the deposition conditions in the first station to slow
or stop depositing the material on the first substrate while
continuing to deposit the material on the second substrate in the
second station under the conditions in (b); and
(d) completing deposition on the first substrate in the first station
and the second substrate in the second station such that a total
thickness of the material deposited on the first substrate and on
the second substrate is equal.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Kaushal US 2006/0166501 A1 July 27, 2006
Chandrasekharan US 2015/0017812 A1 Jan. 15, 2015

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 6 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 (pre-AlA), second paragraph, as being indefinite.

Appeal 2021-000172
Application 15/143,338

3
2. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form.
3. Claims 1–7, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 24–27, 29, and 30 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrasekharan.
4. Claims 1–17 and 24–31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Chandrasekharan in view of Kaushal.
OPINION
For purposes of this appeal, we address separately argued claims, and
the remaining claims stand or fall with the argued claims, consistent with 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering the
argued claims and each of Appellant’s arguments, which in include
arguments in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, we are not persuaded of
reversible error regarding the art rejections. However, we are persuaded of
error regarding the § 112 rejections. Our analysis follows.
Rejections 1 and 2
It is the Examiner’s position that wherein the adjusting the deposition
conditions “comprises only slowing” as recited in claim 6 (and claim 30
depends upon claim 6) is indefinite because “stopping is the most extreme
case of slowing”. Ans. 3. We agree with Appellant (Appeal Br. 7) that
Appeal 2021-000172
Application 15/143,338

4
stopping is not a form of slowing for the reasons expressed by Appellant in
the record. We thus reverse Rejection 1. We also reverse Rejection 2 for
the same reasons (claim 6 does further limit claim 1).

Rejection 3
We refer to the Examiner’s statement of Rejection 3 as set forth on
pages 4–6 of the Final Office Action. Therein, based upon the stated
findings, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to have
independently adjusted the processing conditions in each of the stations
throughout the deposition process, slowing or stopping deposition in one
station relative to the other, in order to ensure the processing conditions are
maintained or returned to the desired conditions to produce the desired end
film thickness deposition on both the substrates, even if the deposition
conditions wandered somewhat during deposition, which resulted in slightly
different processing conditions for a time resulting in slightly different
deposition thicknesses at some time during the deposition process as recited
in claim 1. Final Act. 5.
Appellant argues that Chandrasekharan does not recognize a situation
recited in step (b) of claim 1 (this being a thicker layer being deposited in a
first station than in the second station even though system parameters are set
to produce the same or nearly the same deposition conditions) for the
reasons stated on pages 9–12 of the Appeal Brief. Therein, Appellant argues
that Chandrasekharan does not disclose deposition conditions needing to be
adjusted.
We are unpersuaded by the aforementioned line of argument. As
explained by the Examiner on page 4 of the Answer, Chandrasekharan
Appeal 2021-000172
Application 15/143,338

5
teaches that the different (first and second) stations are each locally
controlled with their own controllers to produce desired processing
conditions in the separate chambers and to adjust those processing
conditions in each such that both produce a desired end product. The
Examiner states that based upon the scientific motivation to account for the
independent variances of the deposition conditions in these different stations
during processing, it would have been obvious to have used these controllers
in each station for their taught purpose and adjust the processing conditions
(thus slowing or stopping the deposition when deposition is slightly faster
than the desired conditions) for each station independently to produce the
desired final product at each station. Ans. 4. As the Examiner explains in
the paragraph bridging pages 4–5 of the Answer, even though
Chandrasekharan does not specifically disclose “wandering” (as an example
of variances), Chandrasekharan teaches to make adjustments to produce the
same product. We agree that making needed adjustments to achieve a
desired product would have been obvious as doing so would have involved
no more than common sense and the ordinary creativity possessed by an
artisan. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420–21 (2007) (a
person of ordinary skill possesses common sense and ordinary creativity).
Appellant next argues that Chandrasekharan does not suggest step (c)
of claim 1 for the reasons set forth on pages 12–13 of the Appeal Brief. Step
(c) recites “adjusting the deposition conditions in the first station to slow or
stop depositing the material on the first substrate while continuing to deposit
the material on the second substrate in the second station under the
conditions in (b)”. We are unpersuaded by this line of argument and agree
with the Examiner that Chandrasekharan teaches using a system controller to
Appeal 2021-000172
Application 15/143,338

6
adjust various processing conditions such as flow rate (which would include
slowing or stopping flow rate) to produce desired deposition conditions.
Final Act. 5.
Appellant next argues that Chandrasekharan does not suggest clause
(d) and (e) of claim 13 for the reasons stated on pages 13–15 of the Appeal
Brief. We are unpersuaded by this line of argument. On pages 5–6 of the
Final Office Action, the Examiner makes findings regarding how
Chandrasekharan suggests performing the cycles as recited in claim 13 to
produce the desired end film thickness. We agree with the findings therein,
and reiterate that making needed adjustments would have involved no more
than common sense and the ordinary creativity possessed by an artisan. KSR
Int’l Co. at 420–21.
With regard to Appellant’s arguments pertaining to claims 6 and 26
set forth on pages 15–16 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant’s argument focuses
on how Chandrasekharan does not suggest “slowing” deposition conditions
or “slower” deposition of a layer. As stated supra, we are unpersuaded by
this line of argument and agree with the Examiner that Chandrasekharan
teaches using a system controller to adjust various processing conditions
such as flow rate (which would include slowing or stopping flow rate) to
produce desired deposition conditions. Final Act. 5.
In view of the above, we affirm Rejection 3.
Rejection 4
On page 17 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant recognizes that Rejection 4
is based upon the same reasoning of Rejection 3. With regard to
Chandrasekharan, Appellant relies upon the same argument relied upon for
Rejection 3, and we are unpersuaded by such argument for the reasons
Appeal 2021-000172
Application 15/143,338

7
discussed, supra. With regard to the secondary reference of Kaushal,
Appellant argues that it would have not been obvious to combine Kaushal
with Chandrasekharan for the reason set forth on page 18 of the Appeal
Brief. We are unpersuaded by such argument for the reasons stated by the
Examiner on page 7 of the Answer.
In view of the above, we affirm Rejection 4.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision with regard to Rejections 1 and 2.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision with regard to Rejections 3 and 4.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
6, 30 112(b) Indefiniteness 6, 30
6 112(d) Improper Form 6
1–7, 9, 13,
14, 16, 17,
24–27, 29,
30
103 Chandrasekharan 1–7, 9, 13,
14, 16, 17,
24–27, 29,
30

1–17, 24–31 103 Chandrasekharan,
Kaushal
1–17, 24–31
Overall
Outcome
1–17, 24–31
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2021-000172
Application 15/143,338

8
AFFIRMED