Ryan Bise et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 4, 2019

13438473 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 4, 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.
13/438,473 04/03/2012 Ryan Bise LAM2P724B 2197
119049 7590 09/04/2019
PENILLA IP, APC and Lam Research Corp.
Albert Penilla
710 Lakeway Drive
Suite 200
Sunnyvale, CA 94085
EXAMINER
CHOU, JIMMY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/04/2019 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
lamptomail@mpiplaw.com
pipdocket@penillaip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RYAN BISE, RAJINDER DHINDSA,
ALEXEI MARAKHTANOV, LUMIN LI, SANG KI NAW,
JIM ROGERS, ERIC HUDSON, GERARDO DELGADINO,
ANDREW D. BAILEY III, MIKE KELLOGG,
ANTHONY DELA LLERA, and DARRELL EHRLICH
____________________

Appeal 2018-003888
Application 13/438,473
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Office Action dated February 22, 2017 (“Final Act.”),
rejecting claims 1–7, 10, and 18–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Lam Research Corporation is identified as the real party in interest in this
appeal. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-003888
Application 13/438,473

2

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to a plasma processing system including
a plasma chamber. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. A plasma processing system comprising:

a plasma chamber including:

a substrate support; and

a multi-zone gas injection upper electrode disposed
opposite the substrate support, an inner plasma region being
defined between the multi-zone gas injection upper electrode and
the substrate support, the multi-zone gas injection upper
electrode including an inner electrode, an outer electrode that
surrounds the inner electrode, and an insulator that separates the
inner electrode and the outer electrode, the multi-zone gas
injection upper electrode including a gas distribution plate that is
surrounded by the insulator and includes an insulator plate
disposed over said gas distribution plate, the gas distribution
plate being disposed between the insulator plate and the inner
electrode, the multi-zone gas injection upper electrode including
an inner heater and an outer heater, the inner heater being
disposed above the insulator plate, the gas distribution plate, and
the inner electrode, the outer heater being disposed above the
outer electrode, and a ground electrode disposed between the
outer heater and the outer electrode,

wherein the multi-zone gas injection upper electrode has a
plurality of concentric gas injection zones, each of the plurality
of concentric gas injection zones including a first plurality of gas
outlet ports and a second plurality of gas outlet ports, the first
plurality of gas outlet ports configured for coupling to a first gas
source and the second plurality of gas outlet ports configured for
coupling to a second gas source,

Appeal 2018-003888
Application 13/438,473

3

a confinement structure surrounding the inner plasma
region, the confinement structure having an upper horizontal
wall that interfaces with the outer electrode of the multizone gas
injection upper electrode such that a lower surface of the upper
horizontal wall is disposed at a level that is substantially the same
as a level at which a lower surface of the inner electrode of the
multi-zone gas injection upper electrode is disposed, the
confinement structure having a lower horizontal wall that
interfaces with the substrate support, the lower horizontal wall
including a perforated confinement ring, and the confinement
structure having a vertical wall that extends from the upper
horizontal wall to the lower horizontal wall, wherein each of the
lower surface of the upper horizontal wall, an inner surface of the
vertical wall, and an upper surface of the lower horizontal wall
defines a boundary of an outer plasma region, the outer plasma
region surrounding the inner plasma region; and

a controller coupled to the plasma chamber.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects:
(i) claims 1–4, 10, and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chen (US 7,829,815 B2, issued Nov. 9, 2010) in view of
Hoffman (US 2003/0136766 A1, published July 24, 2003), Dhindsa ‘766
(US 2005/0241766 A1, published Nov. 3, 2005), Dhindsa ‘878 (US
2009/0081878 A1, published Mar. 26, 2009), and Keil (US 9,111,724 B2,
issued Aug. 9, 2015);
(ii) claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen
in view of Hoffman, Dhindsa ‘766, Dhindsa ‘878, Keil, and Kester (US
2012/0086541 A1, published Apr. 12, 2012); and
Appeal 2018-003888
Application 13/438,473

4

(iii) claims 5–7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Chen in view of Hoffman, Dhindsa ‘766, Dhindsa ‘878, Keil, and
Comendant (US 2011/0075313 A1, published Mar. 31, 2011).

DISCUSSION
Claims 1–4, 10, and 18–20--§ 103(a)--Chen/Hoffman/Dhindsa ‘766/
Dhindsa ‘878/Keil
The Examiner finds that Chen does not teach a plasma chamber that
has a claimed confinement structure surrounding an inner plasma region
having upper and lower horizontal walls having various recited features, and
a vertical wall that extends from the upper to the lower horizontal wall,
wherein the inner surfaces of the walls define a boundary of an outer plasma
region surrounding the inner plasma region. Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner
relies on Dhindsa ‘878 as disclosing a confinement structure meeting the
limitations set forth in claim 1, and cites to an annotated version of Figure 1
of Dhindsa ‘878, illustrating the structural components asserted to
correspond to the upper and lower horizontal walls and the vertical wall of
the claimed confinement structure. Id. at 6–7, 19. The Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to modify Chen by replacing Chen’s
confinement structure2 with the Dhindsa ‘878 confinement structure to
provide an enclosed structure for heating and containing processing gas. Id.
at 7.
Appellants maintain that plasma confinement in the Dhindsa ‘878
structure is provided by a confinement ring assembly 122, which includes a

2 We note that the Examiner made no explicit findings regarding what
structure in Chen forms a confinement structure.
Appeal 2018-003888
Application 13/438,473

5

number of plasma confinement rings 124 and a lift mechanism 126 for
adjusting a vertical gap between the rings. Appeal Br. 9. Appellants argue
that the Examiner identifies “a hodgepodge of [] components” other than the
confinement rings and lift mechanism present in the Dhindsa ‘878 plasma
chamber as constituting a confinement structure corresponding to the
claimed structure. Id. According to Appellants, given that the plasma is
otherwise confined, the various structural elements identified by the
Examiner do not provide plasma confinement functionality. Id. at 9–10.
Appellants further assert that the Examiner does not clearly identify
what structure is considered to correspond to the claimed lower horizontal
wall, but has instead, in the annotated version of Figure 1 of Dhindsa ‘878,
simply drawn arrows to an area constituting a void in the plasma chamber
wall and a “block” to which no reference numeral is assigned. Appeal Br.
11. Additionally, Appellants point out that the Examiner does not explain
how the vertical wall identified in annotated Figure 1 can be regarded as
extending from the upper horizontal wall to the lower horizontal wall, as
claimed. Id. at 12. Appellants further emphasize, with respect to the vertical
wall in Dhindsa ‘878 identified by the Examiner, that there is no indication
that this is a plasma-containing vertical wall, and, if it were, there would be
no need for confinement rings 124. Reply Br. 3–4.
The Examiner deflects these arguments, taking the position that
Appellants do not “expressly define” the term “confinement structure” in the
Specification. Ans. 21. The Examiner faults claim 1 for not “either
structurally or functionally” claiming the “precise object that the
‘confinement structure’ is confining.” Id. The Examiner submits that, if
Appeal 2018-003888
Application 13/438,473

6

Appellants intend the confinement structure to directly confine the plasma,
the claim should be limited to such. Id.
As to the Examiner’s claim construction admonishments, claim 1
requires that “each of the lower surface of the upper horizontal wall, an inner
surface of the vertical wall, and an upper surface of the lower horizontal wall
defines a boundary of an outer plasma region, with the outer plasma region
surrounding the inner plasma region.” Appeal Br. 17, Claims Appendix.
We believe that this adequately and expressly identifies the material that the
confinement structure is confining, as well as limits the claim to directly
confining the plasma.
Appellants have the better position as to the Examiner identifying
various structural components in Dhindsa ‘878 that do not form parts of a
confinement structure in that device or system. Accordingly, the proposed
modification of Chen in view of Dhindsa ‘878 would not produce the
claimed confinement system, and the rejection of claim 1 as being
unpatentable over this combination is not sustained. Claims 2–4, and 10
depend from claim 1, and the rejection of those claims is not sustained.
Independent claim 18 includes essentially the same limitations directed to
the confinement structure as does claim 1, and the rejection is similarly not
sustained as to claim 18 and its dependent claims 19 and 20.

Claim 5--§ 103(a)--Chen/Hoffman/Dhindsa ‘766/Dhindsa ‘878/Keil/Kester
The Examiner does not rely on Kester in any manner that overcomes
the deficiencies noted with respect to the combination of Dhindsa ‘878 with
Chen relative to claim 1. The rejection of claim 5 is not sustained.

Appeal 2018-003888
Application 13/438,473

7

Claims 5–7--§ 103(a)--Chen/Hoffman/Dhindsa ‘766/Dhindsa ‘878/Keil/
Comendant
The Examiner does not rely on Comendant in any manner that
overcomes the deficiencies noted with respect to the combination of Dhindsa
‘878 with Chen relative to claim 1. The rejection of claims 5–7 is not
sustained.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1–7, 10, and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are reversed.

REVERSED