Applied Materials, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 4, 20202019003906 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/567,161 12/11/2014 Brian T. WEST 22357US 3148 44257 7590 05/04/2020 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPLIED MATERIALS 24 GREENWAY PLAZA SUITE 1600 HOUSTON, TX 77046 EXAMINER MAI, ANH D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2829 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/04/2020 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 BRIAN T. WEST, MANOJ A. GAJENDRA, and SOUNDARRAJAN JEMBULINGAM ____________ Appeal 2019-003906 Application 14/567,161 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before JOHN A. EVANS, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRY, 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, 2, 4–10, 12–16, and 21–23. Claims 3, 11, and 17–20 are canceled. Appeal Br. 26, 28, 29 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use “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. 3. Appeal 2019-003906 Application 14/567,161 2 Introduction Appellant describes the invention as relating to “the manufacturing of semiconductor devices. More particularly, embodiments relate to cooling an electrostatic chuck [(ESC)] during the manufacturing of semiconductor devices.” Spec. ¶ 1. Independent claim 1 is illustrative: 1. An electrostatic chuck assembly comprising: an electrostatic chuck configured to operate at a temperature that includes a range of between about 378 degrees Celsius to about 445 degrees Celsius; a cooling plate disposed in contact with the electrostatic chuck, the cooling plate having a gas channel formed therein; and a gas box having a gas return inlet, a gas return outlet, a cooling gas outlet, a cooling gas inlet and a heat exchanger, the cooling gas outlet coupled to a first end of the gas channel in the cooling plate, the cooling gas outlet coupled through only a flow control valve to the cooling gas inlet wherein fluid flowing from the cooling gas inlet has only a single path through the gas box which is inaccessible to the heat exchanger, the gas return inlet coupled to a second end of the gas channel in the cooling plate, the gas return inlet coupled through the heat exchanger to the gas return outlet, the gas box operable to control a flow of cooling gas through the gas channel to maintain a temperature of the electrostatic chuck between about 378 and about 445 degrees Celsius and the heat exchanger is configured to cool the cooling gas from about 200 degrees Celsius at the gas return inlet to a temperature at the gas return outlet configured for being exhausted outside of an environment containing the electrostatic chuck assembly. Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App.). Appeal 2019-003906 Application 14/567,161 3 References Name Reference Date Nguyen et al. (Nguyen) US 2007/0165356 A1 July 19, 2007 Reitinger US 2012/0311858 A1 Dec. 13, 2012 Richardson III et al. (Richardson) US 2012/0321848 A1 Dec. 20, 2012 Brown et al. (Brown) US 7,480,129 B2 Jan. 20, 2009 Ogahara US 5,958,265 Sept. 28, 1999 Rejections The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 5, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nguyen and Reitinger. Final Act. 3–7. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nguyen, Reitinger, and Richardson. Id. at 7–8, 10–15. The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nguyen, Reitinger, and Brown. Id. at 8. The Examiner rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nguyen, Reitinger, and Ogahara. Id. at 8–10. The Examiner rejected claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nguyen, Reitinger, Richardson, and Brown. Id. at 16. The Examiner rejected claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nguyen, Reitinger, Richardson, and Ogahara. Id. at 16– 17. Analysis In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Figure 1 of Reitinger for teaching “a gas box (70) having . . . a gas return outlet (r4) . . . configured Appeal 2019-003906 Application 14/567,161 4 for being exhausted outside of an environment containing the electrostatic chuck assembly.” Final Act. 4 (citing Reitinger, Fig. 1). According to the Examiner, in Figure 1 of Reitinger, gas travels from i3, the gas return inlet, into the heat exchanger 95, and then exits at i4 to the discharge member 40. Ans. 9. The Examiner explains that, “[c]learly, the discharge member ‘40’ is away from and independent from motherboard 30 and base body G,” which “is similar to the gas return inlet 222, enter the heat exchanger 220 then exit the heat exchanger 220 and discharged at 224, away from and independent from the ESC 152,” as shown in Figure 2 of Appellant’s invention. Id.; see also id. at 11, 13–14. The Examiner further submits that “[i]n a similar way, any exhaust gas out of the gas box 141 of NGUYEN[] would have been exhausted outside of an environment 106[] containing the ESC 122.” Id. at 11. Appellant contends, inter alia, the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Nguyen and Reitinger teaches or suggests “the heat exchanger is configured to cool the cooling gas from about 200 degrees Celsius at the gas return inlet to a temperature at the gas return outlet configured for being exhausted outside of an environment containing the electrostatic chuck assembly,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 14–18; Reply Br. 7–8. According to Appellant, “it is obvious that the plain meaning to one skilled in the art for the feature ‘the gas return outlet configured for being exhausted outside of an environment containing the electrostatic chuck assembly’ . . . is outside the processing chamber.” Reply Br. 7. By contrast, Appellant argues that in Reitinger, “[t]he exhaust (40) is for maintaining the environment, and particularly the humidity, in the container 5.” Reply Br. 8. Appellant explains that “[n]ot only is the discharge member ‘40’ NOT Appeal 2019-003906 Application 14/567,161 5 clearly away from the motherboard 30 and base body G, but the discharge member is there for the benefit of the motherboard 30 and base body G.” Id. Appellant’s argument is persuasive. Figure 2 of Appellant’s invention is exemplary of the claim element at issue and is reproduced below: Figure 2, shown above, is a schematic diagram of a gas cooling arrangement 200 for an electrostatic chuck 152 (ESC). Spec. ¶¶ 9, 37. The gas cooling arrangement 200 includes a gas cooled ESC assembly 252 (ESC 152 and cooling plate 176) connected to a gas cooling box 178 by cooling lines 174. Id. The cooling lines 174 are two gas return lines and two corresponding gas supply lines that provide a cooling gas to the gas cooled ESC assembly 252. Id. The gas cooling box 178 has a source cooling gas inlet 214 for receiving cooling gas from a cooling gas source 260, and a Appeal 2019-003906 Application 14/567,161 6 cooling gas outlet 212 through which the cooling gas leaves for the cooling plate 176. Id. ¶ 38. The cooling gas increases in temperature as it travels through and removes heat from the gas cooled ESC assembly 252. Id. ¶ 37. The heated cooling gas returns from the gas cooled ESC assembly 252 via the cooling lines 174 back to the gas cooling box 178 via the gas return inlet 222. Id. Within the gas cooling box 178, a heat exchanger 220 cools the heated cooling gas, and the cooled cooling gas is exhausted out of the gas cooling box 178 to the cooling gas source 260 via return gas outlet 224. Id. ¶ 42. For comparison, Figure 1 of Reitinger is reproduced below. Figure 1 of Reitinger, shown above, is a schematic view of a device for conditioning semiconductor chips. See, e.g., Reitinger ¶¶ 13, 21–43. In Figure 1, dried air from a gas cylinder or air drier is sent via lines r0 and r1 to a temperature control rack 2 and, in particular, to a temperature control means 70, which has a heat exchanger 95 connected to cooling units 71 and 72 for bringing the dried air to a predetermined temperature. Id. ¶ 36. The Appeal 2019-003906 Application 14/567,161 7 dried air is fed through the heat exchanger 95 and subsequently into the container 5 via a supply line r2 to junction K1. Id. ¶ 37. From junction K1, the dried air is fed in a parallel manner into the fluid inlets F1 of base body G (attached to motherboard 30) for cooling. Id. The dried air, having cooled the base body G, exits in a parallel manner via the fluid outlets F0 of base body G via the junction K2 and, subsequently, the line r3 and is fed out of the container 5 back to the temperature control rack 2. Id. ¶ 38. Within the temperature control rack 2 again, the dried air is fed through the line r3 towards a heating means 105 of the temperature control means 70. Id. ¶ 39. A portion of the dried air branches off before the heating means 105 via a line i3 to go through the heat exchanger 95. Id. ¶ 40. Dried air exits the heat exchanger 95 via a line i4 and via a line r4 is fed by discharge members 40 back into container 5 for conditioning the container’s atmosphere. See id.; see also id. ¶ 43. The Examiner identifies no persuasive evidence that Reitinger teaches or suggests a “heat exchanger . . . configured to cool the cooling gas from about 200 degrees Celsius at the gas return inlet to a temperature at the gas return outlet configured for being exhausted outside of an environment containing the electrostatic chuck assembly,” as recited in claim 1. Line r4, which the Examiner equates to the “gas return outlet,” carries dried air to discharge members 40 located inside container 5 for controlling the temperature of semiconductor chips C. In other words, line r4 is configured for being exhausted inside—not outside—an environment containing the semi-conductor cooling assembly. Nor has the Examiner provided any persuasive evidence that Nguyen remedies the deficiencies of Reitinger, or a persuasive rationale for Appeal 2019-003906 Application 14/567,161 8 combining the teachings of Nguyen and Reitinger to arrive at the disputed claimed element. Here, although the Examiner finds that although Nguyen does not explicitly disclose that its gas box (see Nguyen, Fig. 1, item 141 (fluid recirculator)) includes “a gas return outlet,” the gas box nevertheless would have exhausted gas outside of the environment containing the ESC. Final 3–4; Ans. 11 (citing Nguyen, Fig. 1). The Examiner has not, however, adequately supported this assertion. For example, the Examiner does not persuasively explain how or why Nguyen teaches this, or how one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Nguyen with Reitinger to arrive at the “gas return outlet,” as recited. We decline to resort to speculation to fill in the gaps in the Examiner’s rejection. See Ex parte Braeken, 54 USPQ2d 1110, 1112 (BPAI 1999). For the foregoing reasons, on this record, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1. We likewise do not sustain the § 103 rejections of independent claim 9, which includes similar limitations for which the Examiner relies on the same findings and reasoning, and of the dependent claims 2, 4–8, 10, 12–16, and 21–23. See Final Act. 7–17. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 1, 2, 4–10, 12–16, and 21–23. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis/ Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed 1, 4, 5, 7 103 Nguyen, Reitinger 1, 4, 5, 7 Appeal 2019-003906 Application 14/567,161 9 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis/ Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed 2, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 22, 23 103 Nguyen, Reitinger, Richardson 2, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 22, 23 6 103 Nguyen, Reitinger, Brown 6 8 103 Nguyen, Reitinger, Ogahara 8 14 103 Nguyen, Reitinger, Richardson, Brown 14 21 103 Nguyen, Reitinger, Richardson, Ogahara 21 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4–10, 12– 16, 21–23 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation