Ex Parte Brenninger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 13, 2018

13407832 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/407,832 02/29/2012
22045 7590
Brooks Kushman P.C.
1000 Town Center
22nd Floor
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075
11/15/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Georg Brenninger
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
WSAG 0296 PUS 4148
EXAMINER
KENDALL, BENJAMIN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1718
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/15/2018 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
kdilucia@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GEORG BRENNINGER, ALOIS AIGNER,
and CHRISTIAN HAGER
Appeal2018-001295
Application 13/407,832
Technology Center 1700
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, RAEL YNN P. GUEST, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Applicants ("Appellants") 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Primary Examiner's final decision to reject claims 22-33. 2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as "Siltronic AG" (Appeal
Brief filed March 27, 2017 ("Appeal Br.") at 1). We note that the Appeal
Brief was supplemented April 21, 2017 to provide a corrected Claims
Appendix. For the purposes of this opinion, any reference to the Appeal
Brief, other than the Claims Appendix, will be to the version filed March 2 7,
2017.
2 Appeal Br. 1-23; Reply Brief filed November 21, 2017 ("Reply Br.") at 1-
8; Final Office Action entered August 31, 2016 ("Final Act.") at 3-15;
Examiner's Answer entered September 22, 2017 ("Ans.") at 3-28.
Appeal2018-001295
Application 13/407 ,832
I. BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to an apparatus for depositing a
material layer originating from process gas on a substrate wafer
(Specification filed February 29, 2012 ("Spec.") at 1, 11. 14--15). Figure 1
(partially annotated) is illustrative and is reproduced from the Drawings filed
February 29, 2012, as follows:
Fig. 1
Figure 1 above depicts "a reactor chamber having the typical features of an
apparatus for depositing a material layer originating from process gas on a
substrate wafer [ 4,]" wherein the apparatus includes, among other elements,
an upper dome 1, a lower dome 2, a side wall 3, and a susceptor 5, which is
surrounded by a preheating ring 6 that lies on a liner 7 that is part of the side
wall 3 (Spec. 5, 11. 20-25). As shown in the enlarged insert, sliding balls 8
2
Appeal2018-001295
Application 13/407 ,832
are distributed over and partly embedded in the preheating ring 6 's edge
region as well as the liner 7 and act as spacers defining a gap Li between the
preheating ring 6 and the liner 7 (id. at 5, 11. 25-27; 6, 11. 1-8; Fig. 3). A gap
D (as shown in Figure 3) having a uniform width is created between the
susceptor 5 and the preheating ring 6, which is kept in the centered position
independently of its own thermal expansion and liner 7's thermal expansion
(Spec. 6, 11. 13-15).
Figure 2 (annotated) is reproduced as follows:
7 Hner
5
Figure 2 above shows a plan view of a susceptor 5, a preheater ring 6, and a
liner 7 (id. at 3, 1. 16), wherein sliding balls 8 are partly embedded in a
radially extending elongated hole 9 (id. at 5, 1. 32---6, 1. 5). "In this way,
3
Appeal2018-001295
Application 13/407 ,832
direct contact between the preheating ring [ 6] and the liner [7] is completely
or almost completely prevented" and "[ o ]wing to the lack of contact, a
relative radial movement between the preheating ring [ 6] and the liner [7]
due to thermal expansion during the deposition of the material film no
longer contributes to the formation of [undesirable] particles" (id. at 4, 11.
28-31).
Representative claim 22 is reproduced from the substitute Claims
Appendix, as follows:
22. An apparatus for depositing a material layer
originating from process gas on a substrate wafer, comprising
a reactor chamber, which is delimited by an upper dome
and a lower dome and a side wall;
a rotatable susceptor for holding the substrate wafer during
deposition of the material layer;
a preheating ring surrounding the susceptor, the preheating
ring having a circular central opening within which the rotatable
susceptor rotates;
a liner, on which the preheating ring is supported in a
centered position wherein a gap D having a uniform width is
present between the preheating ring and the susceptor; and
a spacer between the liner and the preheating ring, the
spacer keeping the preheating ring in a centered position and
providing a vertical distance Li between the preheating ring and
the liner, the spacer comprising balls embedded partly in
recesses in the preheating ring and partly in the liner, which
enable a relative radial movement between the preheating ring
and the liner due to thermal expansion, each ball lying in a[n]
elongated recess extending in a radial direction.
(Supplemental Appeal Brief filed April 21, 2017, Claims Appendix at
1 (italics and bracketed material added)).
4
Appeal2018-001295
Application 13/407 ,832
II. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, the Examiner maintains two rejections under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) as follows:
A. Claims 22-33 as unpatentable over Ose, 3 Lee, 4 and Duong et
al. 5 ("Duong"); and
B. Claims 26-29 as unpatentable over Ose, Lee, Duong, and Riker
et al. 6 ("Riker").
(Ans. 3-28; Final Act. 3-15.)
III. DISCUSSION
1. The Examiner's Position
The Examiner finds that Ose describes an apparatus having most of
the limitations recited in claim 22, including a concentric preheating ring
and liner (Ans. 3 (relying on, e.g., Ose's discussion of Japanese Patent
Application Laid-Open No. 78863/1995 in ,r 4 and Figs. 5A and 5B)). The
Examiner acknowledges, however, that this previously-known apparatus
does not include a spacer comprising distributed sliding balls 8 that are
partly embedded in both the preheating ring 6 and the liner 7, as required by
claim 22 (Ans. 3). To resolve this difference, the Examiner relies on Lee,
which the Examiner finds as teaching a spacer in the form of alignment balls
156 partly embedded between a susceptor 120 and a shadow frame 130 in
3 US 2005/0106524 Al, published May 19, 2005.
4 Korean Patent Publication 10-2007-0003172, published January 5, 2007
( machine-generated translation).
5 US 2009/0283036 Al, published Nov. 19, 2009.
6 US 7,942,969 B2, issued May 17, 2011.
5
Appeal2018-001295
Application 13/407 ,832
the form of a ring for the purpose of maintaining (i) the shadow frame 130 in
a centered position relative to the susceptor 120 and (ii) a distance Li
between the shadow frame 130 and the susceptor 120's bottom surface (id.
at 4).
Specifically, the Examiner finds that Ose teaches that prior art
apparatuses with concentric preheating rings and liners suffer from problems
associated with misalignment of the preheating ring relative to the liner,
thereby causing contact between the susceptor and the preheating ring,
which contact generates undesirable particles that contaminate the wafer (id.
at 10-11). Thus, the Examiner finds that Ose identifies an art-recognized
need to solve a problem in the prior art in which concentric preheating rings
are used, although Ose proposes a solution that involves an eccentric
preheating ring (id. at 11 ). The Examiner finds that Lee discloses an
alternative solution-i.e., partly embedded align balls-that would also
solve the misalignment problem described in Ose (id.).
Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that a person having
ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to implement Lee's align
balls to solve the misalignment problem identified in Ose (id. at 4, 11 ). The
Examiner also determines that although Lee does not specifically teach a
radially extending elongated recess, Duong's teachings would have
prompted a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide such a radially
extending elongated recess to allow the preheating ring to move in the radial
direction relative to the susceptor to ensure accurate alignment (id. at 4--5).
2. The Appellants' Contentions
The Appellants contend that Ose teaches away from an apparatus with
a concentric preheating ring because it teaches that such an apparatus is
6
Appeal2018-001295
Application 13/407 ,832
prone to misalignment, which would cause the preheating ring and the
susceptor to collide during the latter's rotation, thereby producing particles
that will contaminate the wafer (Appeal Br. 2). The Appellants urge that
Ose teaches avoiding such conventional, concentric preheating rings by
using, instead, eccentric preheating rings as shown in Ose' s Figure 2 to
coincide with any improperly-centered susceptor (id. at 2-5). As to Lee, the
Appellants argue that Lee is not analogous art because it is not directed to a
chemical vapor deposition (CVD) reactor that includes a preheating ring and
a rotating susceptor (id. at 6, 8-11 ). Furthermore, the Appellants argue that
Lee teaches using balls positioned in circular recesses rather than elongated
recesses and, therefore, cannot accommodate thermal expansion-a problem
that is not present in Lee (id. at 7). As to Duong, the Appellants also argue
that this reference is not analogous art (id. at 8-11). In addition, the
Appellants argue that Duong teaches elongated recesses with elongated
rollers for receiving and fixing an extension of a button to secure a shadow
frame tightly onto a susceptor, and, therefore, round balls in an elongated
recess would not be suitable as they would move in numerous directions (id.
at 7). The Appellants urge that the Examiner's reliance on Lee and Duong
to arrive at the claimed invention could only have been formulated by
impermissible "picking and choosing" using the claims themselves as a
template (id. at 22).
3. Opinion
For the reasons given below, we disagree with the Appellants that Lee
and Duong are non-analogous art. Nevertheless, we concur with the
Appellants that the Examiner's analysis does not adequately account for the
limitations "the spacer comprising balls embedded partly in recesses in the
7
Appeal2018-001295
Application 13/407 ,832
preheating ring and partly in the liner, which enable a relative radial
movement between the preheating ring and the liner due to thermal
expansion, each ball lying in a[ n] elongated recess extending in a radial
direction" recited in claim 22.
Lee and Duong both relate to chemical vapor deposition apparatuses
in which material is deposited on a wafer (Lee at 2; Duong ,r,r 2-9). Thus,
these references relate to subject matters that fall squarely within the
Appellants' own description of the "Field of the Invention" (Spec. 1, 11. 14--
16). In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (same field of
endeavor test involves comparing the structure and function disclosed by the
applicant with the prior art structure and expected function based on
structural similarity). See also Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231,
1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (the Supreme Court of the United States instructed the
scope of analogous art must be looked at broadly).
Having determined that Lee and Duong are analogous art, we next
consider whether the Examiner articulated a sufficient reason in support of a
conclusion that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have
combined the references in the manner claimed by the Appellants. As we
indicated above, the Examiner relies on Duong for the "each ball lying in
a[ n] elongated recess extending in a radial direction" limitation (Ans. 4--5)
(citing Duong Fig. 4C and ,r 53). Duong's Figure 4C is reproduced as
follows:
8
Appeal2018-001295
Application 13/407 ,832
400-,"'
402 411
/
FIG. 4C
Duong's Figure 4C above depicts part of a substrate processing chamber
including a shadow frame 400 with an alignment insert 402 with an
elongated cavity, which is shaped to receive an alignment button (not
shown), to permit the shadow frame 400 to be properly aligned on a
susceptor (not shown) (Duong ,r,r 9, 54). But as the Appellants point out
(Appeal Br. 7), Duong's alignment insert and corresponding button are
designed to secure, tightly, the shadow frame onto the susceptor (Duong
,r 52). Specifically, in Duong, the alignment button 204 is tightly secured by
alignment rods or rollers 208 as it is inserted into the cavity, as illustrated in,
e.g., Figures 2B and 2C (id. ,r 45).
The problem with the rejection is that the Examiner does not direct us
to any reason----other than impermissible hindsight based upon the
Appellants' disclosure-why Duong would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art that the elongated direction of the cavity shown
9
Appeal2018-001295
Application 13/407 ,832
therein would be suitable to permit radial movement to compensate for
thermal expansion when Duong teaches tight securement. Although Ose
identifies a problem in the prior art by teaching that the susceptor and the
preheat ring may contact each other in an undesirable way during wafer
processing in the case of a heat treatment apparatus as a result of
misalignment caused by errors in manufacturing and assembly, Ose
proposes a solution (i.e., to form the preheat ring such that its inner
peripheral center is eccentric to its outer periphery) that is divergent from
that provided in Lee or Duong (Ose ,r,r 6-9, 13, 14, 40).
In Lee, align balls 156, acting in concert with the corresponding align
grooves 160 and multiple rollers 164, prevent "the error of the deposition
caused by the minute misalignment of the align ball (156) and shadow mask
(130)" (Lee 6; Fig. 6b ). Modifying Lee by providing an elongated recess as
shown in Duong and a ball that would be free to move radially within the
elongated recess would be inconsistent with Lee's goal of eliminating any
"minute misalignment." In our view, if Duong were to be combined with
Lee at all, the resulting combination would not have the elongation in the
radial direction.
For these reasons, we cannot uphold either rejection.
IV. SUMMARY
Rejections A and Bare not sustained. Therefore, the Examiner's final
decision to reject claims 22-33 is reversed.
REVERSED
10