Nyi Oo. Myo et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 13, 2020

13937889 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2020)

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.
13/937,889 07/09/2013 NYI OO MYO 16211USA 6061
55649 7590 03/13/2020
Moser Taboada / Applied Materials, Inc.
1030 Broad Street
Suite 203
Shrewsbury, NJ 07702
EXAMINER
YU, YUECHUAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1718
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/13/2020 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):
ataboada@mtiplaw.com
docketing@mtiplaw.com
llinardakis@mtiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NYI OO MYO and MEHMET TUGRUL SAMIR
Appeal 2018-008047
Application 13/937,889
Technology Center 1700
Before DONNA M. PRAISS, BRIAN D. RANGE, and
SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–9 and 21–25. We have jurisdiction.
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

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 Applied Materials,
Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-008047
Application 13/937,889

2
BACKGROUND
The claims on appeal recite a gas distribution apparatus to be used in
substrate processing such as an epitaxial deposition process. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 3.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A gas distribution apparatus, comprising:
a first quartz layer having a plurality of openings disposed
through the first quartz layer from a first side to an opposing
second side of the first quartz layer, wherein the first side of the
first quartz layer is a first outer surface of the gas distribution
apparatus;
a second quartz layer coupled to the second side of the first
quartz layer;
a first plenum fluidly coupled to a first set of the plurality
of openings and disposed between the first quartz layer and the
second quartz layer;
a second plenum fluidly coupled to a second set of the
plurality of openings and disposed between the first quartz layer
and the second quartz layer, wherein the second plenum is fluidly
independent of the first plenum; and
one or more outlets disposed through a side of the gas
distribution apparatus opposite the plurality of openings and
configured to provide a gas from the gas distribution apparatus
to a second outer surface of the gas distribution apparatus
opposite the first outer surface.
Appeal Br. 15.

Appeal 2018-008047
Application 13/937,889

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Fujikawa US 5,595,606 Jan. 21, 1997
Shinriki US 6,800,139 B1 Oct. 5, 2004
Watanabe US 2002/0005442 A1 Jan. 17, 2002
Tetsuka US 2007/0044716 A1 Mar. 1, 2007
Tompa US 2008/0236495 A1 Oct. 2, 2008
Saywell US 2010/0170438 A1 July 8, 2010
Xia US 2013/0344245 A1 Dec. 26, 2013
Kusumoto JP 63-28868 A Feb. 6, 1988
Tsuda JP 2012/147027 A Aug. 2, 2012

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
I. Claims 1, 9, 21, 22, and 25 over Xia in view of Fujikawa and
Tetsuka;
II. Claims 3 and 4 over Xia in view of Fujikawa, Tetsuka, and
Tsuda;
III. Claim 23 over Xia in view of Tetsuka and Tsuda;
IV. Claim 24 over Xia in view of Tetsuka, Tsuda and Kusumoto;
V. Claim 2 over Xia in view of Fujikawa, Tetsuka, and Tompa;
VI. Claims 5 and 6 over Xia in view of Fujikawa, Tetsuka, Tsuda,
Watanabe, and Shinriki;
VII. Claims 7 and 8 over Xia in view of Fujikawa, Tetsuka, Tsuda,
Watanabe, Shinriki, and Saywell.
Final Act. 2–20.

Appeal 2018-008047
Application 13/937,889

4
OPINION
Rejections I, II, and V–VII
Although Appellant provides separate subheadings in addressing these
Rejections, Appellant only offers substantive arguments directed to
Rejection I. Appeal Br. 7–9, 11–13. We, therefore, focus our discussion on
Rejection I. Appellant’s arguments with respect to Rejection I are directed
to limitations present in independent claims 1 and 25. Id. at 7–8. Appellant
does not separately argue dependent claims 9, 21, and 22. Id. Thus,
consistent with our rules, we select claim 1 as representative and decide
Rejection I––and by extension, Rejections II and V–VII––on the basis of
claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
We have considered Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 7–8) and are
unpersuaded that Appellant has identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir.
2011). Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejections based on the
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments expressed by
the Examiner in the Final Action and in the Answer. We add the following
comments for emphasis.
Appellant’s sole argument against the rejection of claim 1 is that
Fujikawa’s recesses 82––which the Examiner maps to the claimed first and
second plenums––are not “fluidly independent” one from another because
all such recesses “are coupled to the same gas inlet 72 via the passage
portion 54a and the passage portions 54b.” Appeal Br. 8. According to
Appellant, the skilled artisan “would understand that the recesses 82 of
Fujikawa are not fluidly independent of one another because one cannot
Appeal 2018-008047
Application 13/937,889

5
change the flow characteristics present in one of the recesses 82 . . . without
also changing those characteristics in the remaining recesses 82.” Id.
The Examiner, however, asserts that Fujikawa’s recesses 82 are
“fluidly independent” from each other because “there is a solid wall
physically preventing gas communication between them and each has [] its
own separate flow path, i.e.[,] not one flowing into the other, [and] vice
versa, commensurate with applicant’s Figs. 1, 3.” Final Act. 4.
The dispositive issue, then, is whether the Examiner’s claim
construction of the term “fluidly independent” is reasonable in view of
Appellant’s disclosure. See In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d
1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (explaining that, during examination, “the PTO
must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
specification.”).
Here, Appellant does not point us to, nor are we able to find, an
express definition of the term “fluidly independent,” much less one that
requires the plenums to have a specific coupling arrangement to a gas source
so that certain “flow characteristics” of the gas can be changed. See Appeal
Br. 7–8. Rather, the Specification states that the first and second plenums
“may be utilized for providing different gases to different regions of the
substrate 101, or alternatively providing the same gas at different flow rates
to the substrate.” Spec. ¶ 35 (emphasis added). In other words, the
disclosure does not require the first and second plenums to have the
functionality argued by Appellant. Moreover, we note that the disclosure
does not require multiple gas inlets in the gas injection port. See Spec. ¶ 26
(“[T]he gas injection port 114 may include a plurality of inlets 111 . . . to
provide the one or more process gas to the gas injection system 109, as
Appeal 2018-008047
Application 13/937,889

6
illustrated in Figure 1B,” and how “[t]he flow path provided by the plurality
of inlets 111 . . . is merely exemplary for illustration and any desirable
configuration of flow paths may be utilized.”). We, therefore, are
unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments that are premised on requiring such a
configuration. Appeal Br. 7–8; see also Reply Br. 5 (asserting how separate
inlets are required for the plenums to be deemed “fluidly independent”).
We agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 4; Ans. 21) that it is
reasonable to construe the phrase “fluidly independent” as requiring the
plenums to be separated so that the gas therein cannot flow in the lateral
direction between the individual recesses 82. As found by the Examiner
(Final Act. 4; Ans. 21), Appellant’s drawings depict first plenum 210 and
second plenum 214 in such an arrangement. See Spec. Figs. 2A, 3A (where
plenums 210 and 214 are separated by quartz layer material 208), and Fig.
2C (where plenums 210 and 214 are separated by wall 220). Notably,
Appellant relies on Figure 3A in its “Summary of Claimed Subject Matter”
to evince this limitation. Appeal Br. 3.
Thus, for these reasons, and those provided by the Examiner, we
sustain Rejections I, II, and V–VII.
Rejections III and IV
In rejecting independent claim 23, the Examiner does not rely on
Fujikawa’s recesses 82 to teach the first and second plenums but rather relies
on Xia’s single inner cavity 75 to satisfy these claim elements. Final Act.
11. For support, the Examiner provides the following annotated Figure 1
from Xia:
Appeal 2018-008047
Application 13/937,889

7

Annotated Figure 1 of Xia illustrates, inter alia, first and second
layers, with a first plenum identified in “a left space portion of cavity 75”
and a second plenum identified in a “right part of [cavity] 75.” Final Act.
11.
Appellant argues that the skilled artisan “would not arbitrarily
interpret one continuous volume (inner cavity 75) as two separate plenums.”
Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner responds that claim 23 does not require “two
separate plenums” as argued by Appellant, and provides an extrinsic
definition of the term “plenum” as “an air-filled space in a structure.” Ans.
21–22.
We agree with Appellant and reverse these rejections. To properly
interpret the meaning of a given claim term, our reviewing court instructs us
to “look first to the intrinsic evidence of record, i.e., the patent itself,
including the claims, the specification and, if in evidence, the prosecution
history” which collectively “is the most significant source of the legally
operative meaning of disputed claim language.” Vitronics Corp. v.
Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Beginning with the language of claim 23 itself, the plenums are
identified as separate elements, i.e., “a first plenum” and “a second plenum.”
Appeal 2018-008047
Application 13/937,889

8
Furthermore, the Specification provides separate element numbers to the
first and second plenums. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 34, 35, 37–40. The Drawings
also depict the first and second plenums as each having their own separately
defined space. See Spec., Figs. 2A, 2C, 3A, 4.
On this record, the Examiner provides no intrinsic evidence to support
a construction of claim 23 so broad that it would reasonably permit one area
to be divided into an arbitrary number of “plenums.”
For this reason, we do not sustain Rejections III and IV.

CONCLUSION
Rejections I, II, and V–VII are affirmed.
Rejections III and IV are reversed.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 9, 21, 22,
25
103 Xia, Fujikawa, Tetsuka 1, 9, 21, 22,
25

3, 4 103 Xia, Fujikawa,
Tetsuka, Tsuda
3, 4
23 103 Xia, Tetsuka, Tsuda 23
24 103 Xia, Tetsuka, Tsuda,
Kusumoto
24
2 103 Xia, Fujikawa,
Tetsuka, Tompa
2
5, 6 103 Xia, Fujikawa,
Tetsuka, Tsuda,
Watanabe, Shinriki
5, 6
7, 8 103 Xia, Fujikawa,
Tetsuka, Tsuda,
7, 8
Appeal 2018-008047
Application 13/937,889

9
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
Watanabe, Shinriki,
Saywell
Overall
Outcome
1–9, 21, 22,
25
23, 24

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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART