Applied Materials, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 28, 2020

2020001412 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 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.
14/957,440 12/02/2015 Viachslav BABAYAN 023427US 6244
44257 7590 12/28/2020
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPLIED MATERIALS
24 GREENWAY PLAZA
SUITE 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
EXAMINER
LEE, AIDEN Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1718
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2020 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):
Pair_Eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VIACHSLAV BABAYAN, QIWEI LIANG,
TOBIN KAUFMAN-OSBORN, LUDOVIC GODET, and
SRINIVAS D. NEMANI
Appeal 2020-001412
Application 14/957,440
Technology Center 1700
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s March 29, 2019 decision to finally reject claims 1–4, 6, 9–12,
and 15–18 (“Final Act.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. §1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Applied
Materials, Inc. (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal 2020-001412
Application 14/957,440

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure is directed to a semiconductor processing
apparatus (Abstract). As shown in Figures 1 and 2, reproduced below,
processing chamber 100 includes chamber body 102 and lid 106, which
define interior volume 108. Lid 106 is configured to support housing 134
(id.). Substrate support 126 is disposed in interior volume 108 (id.).
Vaporizer 114 is coupled to a cap, and has an outlet open to the interior
volume 108 of the processing chamber 100. Vaporizer 114 is configured to
deliver a precursor gas to a processing region defined between vaporizer 114
and substrate support 126 (id.). Heater 112 is disposed adjacent to vaporizer
114, and is configured to heat vaporizer 114.

Figures 1 and 2 show general views of the processing chamber disclosed in
the application on appeal.

The claimed processing chamber also includes heat shield 210, shown
in Figure 2 above, which can be moved by actuator 212 to enclose a surface
of substrate support 126.

Appeal 2020-001412
Application 14/957,440

3
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A processing chamber, comprising:
a chamber body and a lid, the chamber body and the lid
defining an interior volume of the processing chamber, the lid
supporting a housing, the housing comprising:
a vaporizer;
an internal heat shield spaced from the chamber body, the
internal heat shield surrounding the vaporizer and the internal
heat shield surrounding an outlet port of the vaporizer;
a heater disposed adjacent to the vaporizer; and
a first actuator coupled to the vaporizer and the internal
heat shield, the first actuator operable to move the vaporizer
and the internal heat shield to a position that encloses a surface
of a substrate support disposed in the interior volume of the
processing chamber, the enclosed surface and the internal heat
shield forming a processing region that is open to the outlet port
of the vaporizer.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Gruenwald et al. US 5,009,738 April 23, 1991
Hu et al. US 5,968,594 October 19, 1999
Yamamuka et al. US 6,512,885 B1 January 28, 2003
Bailey et al. US 7,009,281 B2 March 7, 2006
Toshima US 7,695,233 B2 April 13, 2010
Miller et al. US 7,699,932 B2 April 20, 2010
Nijhawan et al. US 2007/0254100 A1 November 1, 2007
Hopper US 2010/0255181 A1 October 7, 2010
REJECTIONS
1. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hu in view of Gruenwald.
Appeal 2020-001412
Application 14/957,440

4
2. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hu in view of Gruenwald, and further in view of
Nijhawan.
3. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hu in view of Gruenwald, and further in view of Bailey.
4. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hu in view of Gruenwald and Bailey, and further in view of Miller.
5. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hu in view of Gruenwald, and further in view of Hopper.
6. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Hu in view of Gruenwald, and further in view of Yamamuka.
7. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Hu in view of Gruenwald and Yamamuka, and further in view of
Nijhawan.
8. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Hu in view of Gruenwald and Yamamuka, and further in view of
Bailey.
9. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Hu in view of Gruenwald, and further in view of Toshima.
10. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Hu in view of Gruenwald and Toshima, and further in view of
Nijhawan.
11. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Hu in view of Gruenwald and Toshima, and further in view of Bailey.
Appeal 2020-001412
Application 14/957,440

5
12. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Hu in view of Gruenwald, Bailey, and Toshima, and further in view of
Miller.
DISCUSSION
Claim 1. The Examiner’s findings with respect to claim 1 are set
forth at pages 4–6 of the Final Action. The Examiner finds that Hu discloses
the elements of claim 1, except that Hu does not disclose the internal heat
shield or the actuator as described in the claim (Final Act. 4–5). The
Examiner also finds that Hu teaches that its system imposes relatively
reduced pressure and/or elevated temperature values to allow vaporization of
the solution (Final Act. 4). The Examiner finds that this feature corresponds
to the claimed heater (Final Act. 4).
Appellant argues that Hu does not disclose or suggest a heater
disposed adjacent to the vaporizer (Appeal Br. 12). According to Appellant,
the only mention that Hu makes about a heater is that, with reference to Hu’s
Figure 1, Hu teaches:
“[t]he temperature and pressure regulation system 150 is
preparation of mixing the liquid ammonia solution. The
configured [sic] according to any of the many arrangements
known to those skilled in the art and generally includes any or
all of an automatic controller, pressure and temperature sensors,
a vacuum source, a refrigeration source, a heat source, vacuum
or coolant jacketing around the solution container 115 and the
conduit 125.”

(Appeal Br. 12, quoting Hu, 5:9–15):
Appeal 2020-001412
Application 14/957,440

6

Hu’s Figure 1 schematically illustrates a chemical vapor deposition system
in accordance with its disclosure.

Appellant argues that a heat jacket around conduit 125 or solution
container 115 would not be “adjacent” to vaporizer 130 and, therefore,
would not meet the claim requirement of “a heater disposed adjacent to the
vaporizer” (Appeal Br. 13). This argument is not persuasive because the
arrows shown above in Hu’s Figure 1 from the “temperature and pressure
regulation system” box demonstrate that a heat jacket could be right next to
(i.e. adjacent to) vaporizer 130, particularly if it were wrapped around the
lower portion of conduit 125.
Appellant also argues that Hu does not teach or suggest that Hu
discloses a housing which “comprises” the heater, as recited in claim 1
(Appeal Br. 13). In particular, Appellant contends that both conduit 125 and
solution container 115 “are expressly disclosed to be outside the housing,
unlike the vaporizer 130” (id.). In this regard, Appellant appears to be
relying on Hu’s disclosure that the vaporization head 130 may be located
inside or outside reaction chamber 140 (which corresponds to the claimed
housing) (Hu, 4:25–33), which implicitly makes clear that both conduit 125
Appeal 2020-001412
Application 14/957,440

7
and solution container 115 are outside reaction chamber 140. This
conclusion is supported by the arrangement of the components as shown in
Figure 1 above, which shows conduit 125 and solution container 115 outside
reaction chamber 140.
In response, the Examiner provides a detailed explanation of why
Hu’s heater would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
as possibly being located “adjacent” to the vaporizer (Ans. 10–12). This
explanation is persuasive, insofar as it shows why Hu suggests a heater
located adjacent to the vaporizer. However, it does not provide reasoning or
evidence of how Hu’s “housing” (reaction chamber 140) comprises the
heater which, as noted above, is shown and described by Hu as being located
outside the housing.
The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case
of obviousness based on an inherent or explicit disclosure of the claimed
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the
prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability.”). To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the
Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described
or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on the
knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In this instance, the evidence of record does not
support the Examiner’s determination that Hu teaches or suggests a housing
comprising a heater (though it does suggest a heater located adjacent to a
vaporizer).
Appeal 2020-001412
Application 14/957,440

8
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 1. Because each of the
remaining rejections relies on the same erroneous finding that Hu would
have rendered obvious a housing comprising a heater, we also reverse the
remaining rejections.

CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1 103 Hu, Gruenwald 1
2, 3 103 Hu, Gruenwald,
Nijhawan
2, 3
4 103 Hu, Gruenwald,
Bailey
4
6 103 Hu, Gruenwald,
Bailey, Miller
6
9 103 Hu, Gruenwald,
Hopper
9
10 103 Hu, Gruenwald,,
Yamamuka
10
11 103 Hu, Gruenwald,
Yamamuka,
Nijhawan
11
12 103 Hu, Gruenwald,
Yamamuka, Bailey
12
15 103 Hu, Gruenwald,
Toshima
15
16 103 Hu, Gruenwald,
Toshima, Nijhawan
16
17 103 Hu, Gruenwald,
Toshima, Bailey
17
Appeal 2020-001412
Application 14/957,440

9
18 103 Hu, Gruenwald,
Toshima, Bailey,
Miller
18
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6, 9–
12, 15–18

REVERSED