APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 3, 2020

14014947 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 3, 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.
14/014,947 08/30/2013 Sundar RAMAMURTHY 008504USC02 2838
44257 7590 01/03/2020
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPLIED MATERIALS
24 GREENWAY PLAZA
SUITE 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
EXAMINER
MURANAMI, MASAHIKO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2020 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 SUNDAR RAMAMURTHY, ANDREAS G. HEGEDUS, and
RANDHIR P.S. THAKUR

Appeal 2018-004896
Application 14/014,947
Technology Center 3700

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, 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, 2, and 4–20. See Final Act. 4; Ans.
3. Claim 3 was canceled during prosecution. Oral Argument was heard in
this case on December 19, 2019. A transcript of the hearing will be entered
in due course. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Applied
Materials, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-004896
Application 14/014,947

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed “to the field of semiconductor processing and,
more specifically, to thermal annealing during semiconductor device
fabrication.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A rapid thermal processing chamber, comprising:
a first heat source comprising a plurality of lamps
disposed within the chamber;
a second heat source disposed within the chamber,
wherein the first and second heat sources are independently
controllable;
a substrate support positioned within a base of the
chamber having a magnetic levitation device affixed thereto;
and
a reflector plate having orifices disposed therethrough in
fluid communication with a gas distribution assembly for
providing gas distribution through the reflector plate.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Arai US 4,504,323 Mar. 12, 1985
Nishizawa US 4,558,660 Dec. 17, 1985
Mayur US 6,280,183 B1 Aug. 28, 2001
Johnsgard US 6,342,691 B1 Jan. 29, 2002
Meisburger US 6,556,279 B1 Apr. 29, 2003
Gregor US 2003/0183611 A1 Oct. 2, 2003
Timans US 2003/0183612 A1 Oct. 2, 2003
REJECTIONS
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Johnsgard and Gregor. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2018-004896
Application 14/014,947

3
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Johnsgard, Gregor, and Timans. Ans. 8.
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Johnsgard, Gregor, and Mayur. Ans. 10.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Johnsgard, Gregor, Arai, and Nishizawa. Ans. 13.
Claims 7 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Johnsgard, Gregor, and Nishizawa. Ans. 17.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Johnsgard, Gregor, Nishizawa, and Meisburger. Ans. 21.
Claims 10–14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Johnsgard, Gregor, Nishizawa, and Mayur. Ans. 24.
Claims 15–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Johnsgard, Gregor, Mayur, Arai, and Nishizawa. Ans. 30.
OPINION
Motivation to Combine Johnsgard and Gregor
Appellant’s sole argument against the Examiner’s rejections is
essentially that one skilled in the art would not modify Johnsgard to include
the lamps of Gregor. See, e.g., App. Br. 7. Appellant’s main assertion in
this regard is that Johnsgard “explicitly criticizes, discredits, and otherwise
discourages use of lamp-based RTP systems” and, thus, teaches away from
the use of lamp-based systems in favor of its resistive heaters. App. Br. 8.
Although we agree that Johnsgard teaches numerous disadvantages of using
lamp-based systems in relation to resistive heaters, we do not agree that this
rises to the level of teaching away from such heaters.
Appeal 2018-004896
Application 14/014,947

4
As the Examiner correctly points out, even Johnsgard itself
acknowledges that “[m]ost RTP systems use high intensity lamps” and that
these lamps have their own advantages, including that because “the lamps
have very low thermal mass, the wafer can be heated rapidly” and “rapid
wafer cooling is also easily achieved [since the heat source may be turned
off instantly without requiring a slow temperature ramp down].” See Final
Act. 46 (citing Johnsgard, col. 1, ll. 17–39) (emphasis omitted). In fact,
Johnsgard’s invention is described as an improvement over or alternative to
the well-known systems using lamp-based systems, thus, exemplifying not
only that one of skill in the art would have known that such lamp-based
systems could be used, but that they were one of the more prevalently used
systems in the art.
The Examiner further notes that Gregor teaches additional advantages
of using lamp-based systems. See, e.g., Ans. 44. The Examiner also points
out that “the wide acceptance of lamp-based heating of wafers/substrates in
thermal processing apparatus, as a conventional, effective heating method
arrangement, is demonstrated by the number of references available for
analysis, such as Gregor, Arai, and Nishizawa.” Ans. 47. Additionally, as
further support, and to rebut Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner also
shows that
Gat teaches the advantage of the use of lamps as the heat source
for wafer processing, over the use of electrical (resistive)
elements, because of the advantageous heating and cooling rate,
and the flexibility afforded by the ability to change the number
of lamps in a group, to achieve the required heating.
Ans. 48 (citing Gat ¶ 46).
Given the evidence provided by the Examiner, we see Johnsgard not
so much teaching away from the use of lamp-based heaters, but simply
Appeal 2018-004896
Application 14/014,947

5
showing that there may be different advantages gained in using resistive
heaters and that, in certain applications, such heaters may be preferred over
lamp-based systems. The Examiner has clearly shown that lamp-based
systems were widely known and used in this art and that there are also
advantages gained in using such systems, even in specific relation to
Johnsgard resistive heaters. Appellant has not provided evidence of
anything specifically in the claims that would caution against using lamp-
based systems for a specifically claimed application, nor has Appellant
shown that Johnsgard’s system, beyond the choice of heating source, is
specifically designed for an application in which lamp-based heating
systems would not be considered by one of skill in the art. At best,
Appellant has shown that there are competing advantages and disadvantages
for each of the two types of heating systems that were well known in the art.
The Examiner has sufficiently shown that one of skill in the art could
have considered what advantages were more important, and in some
situations could have chosen lamp-based systems over resistive systems.
We see nothing in the record before us that would have cautioned one of
skill in the art away from the use of lamp-based systems generally, merely a
trade-off between various advantages and disadvantages of the two systems.
Accordingly, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1.
Appellant relies on the arguments presented for claim 1 in rebutting
the rejection of independent claims 7 and 15 as well as the claims depending
from each of the independent claims at issue. See App. Br. 10–12. As such
we are not apprised of error in the rejection of the remaining claims.
Appeal 2018-004896
Application 14/014,947

6
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are AFFIRMED.
More specifically,
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1 103 Johnsgard and Gregor 1
2 103 Johnsgard, Gregor, and
Timans
2
4, 5 103 Johnsgard, Gregor, and
Mayur
4, 5
6 103 Johnsgard, Gregor,
Arai, and Nishizawa
6
7, 9 103 Johnsgard, Gregor, and
Nishizawa
7, 9
8 103 Johnsgard, Gregor,
Nishizawa, and
Meisburger
8
10–14 103 Johnsgard, Gregor,
Nishizawa, and Mayur
10–14
15–20 103 Johnsgard, Gregor,
Mayur, Arai, and
Nishizawa
15–20
Overall
Outcome:
1, 2, and
4–20

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