11242299 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 8, 2012)

Ex Parte Chacin et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 8, 2012

11242299 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 8, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte JUAN CHACIN, AARON HUNTER, CRAIG METZNER, and ROGER N. ANDERSON ____________ Appeal 2010-011394 Application 11/242,299 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-011394 Application 11/242,299 2 Juan Chacin, Aaron Hunter, Craig Metzner, and Roger N. Anderson, the Appellants,1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-21, and 24.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The invention relates to a substrate processing system, i.e., a reaction chamber or film formation apparatus useful in the processing of substrates. Specification (“Spec.”) at 1, ll. 4-5 and 4, l. 2 to 5, l. 20. According to the Appellants, the invention provides precise monitoring and control of the temperature of a substrate during processing. Spec. 4, ll. 2-3. 1 The Appellants state that the real party in interest is Applied Materials, Inc. 2 Claim 7 was neither included in any statement of rejection nor mentioned in the explanations accompanying the rejections. Final Office Action mailed October 21, 2009 at 2-15; Examiner’s Answer mailed May 14, 2010 (“Ans.”) at 3-17. Therefore, claim 7 is not before us. By contrast, claim 18 was not included in any statement of rejection, but was specifically discussed at page 6 of the Final Office Action and page 7 of the Answer. App App Figu depo cham subs eal 2010-0 lication 11 Figure 1 re 1A abov sition [CV ber 15 inc trate suppo 11394 /242,299 A of the su e shows a D] epitaxi luding a s rt 16, and bject app film form al system) idewall (e a top cove 3 lication is ation syst comprisin .g., quartz) r 11. Spe reproduce em 10 (e.g g, inter a 18, radiat c. 6, l. 20 d below: ., a chemi lia, a proce ion bulbs to 7, l. 19. cal vapor ssing 38, a App App secti Figu 201, 201 l. 21 eal 2010-0 lication 11 Figure 7 onal view re 7 depict a peripher and an inn to 14, l. 2 11394 /242,299 of the app of another s, inter ali al membe er periphe 9. lication, r embodim a, a proce r 205 with ral edge 20 4 eproduced ent of the ssing cham a first reta 8, and a s below, is invention: ber 200 in ining edge ubstrate su a partial c cluding a 203 of th pport 202 ross- sidewall e sidewall . Spec. 12 , App App emb Figu abov subs the s 23-2 eal 2010-0 lication 11 Figure 1 odiment: re 1B show e the subs trate 19 an ubstrate 19 6. Claims 1 1. a on the su the perip an for prov 11394 /242,299 B of the ap s, inter a trate 19,” w d reflects , creating , 8, 16, an A substra processing bstrate, th hery of th irradiativ iding heati plication, lia, “a high hich “tra this light r an emissiv d 24 on ap te process chamber e chamber e chamber e heating s ng radiatio 5 reproduce ly reflecti ps the ligh adiation ba ity enhan peal are re ing system adapted fo including and havin ystem com n directed d below, i ve surface t radiation ck and fo cement eff produced comprisi r the form a sidewal g a first re prising ra towards t llustrates a 13 situate emitted b rth betwee ect.” Spe below: ng: ation of fil l surround taining ed diation lam he substra nother d right y the n itself an c. 10, ll. ms ing ge; ps te; d Appeal 2010-011394 Application 11/242,299 6 a first peripheral member having an outer peripheral edge in contact with the first retaining edge of the sidewall and an inner peripheral edge extending into the processing chamber which blocks light from the irradiative heating system from entering the processing chamber when the irradiative heating system is operative during processing; and a substrate support adapted to support the substrate, the substrate support disposed within the processing system and having an outer edge portion that overlaps the inner peripheral edge of the first peripheral member. 8. The substrate processing system of claim 1, further comprising a top cover disposed above the substrate support to enclose the processing chamber, the top cover comprising a reflective surface for reflecting light emanating from the region of the substrate support back towards the region of the substrate support. 16. The substrate processing system of claim 1, wherein process heating of the substrate is performed exclusively by the irradiative heating system. 24. The substrate processing system of claim 1, wherein the irradiative heating system is disposed under the substrate. Appeal Brief filed February 16, 2010 (“App. Br.”) at 29-32 (Claims App’x). The Examiner rejected the claims as follows: I. Claims 1, 8, 9, 16-18, 21, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Lei;3 II. Claims 1, 8, 9, 16-18, 21, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lei in view of Samoilov;4 3 U.S. Patent 5,476,548 issued December 19, 1995. Appeal 2010-011394 Application 11/242,299 7 III. Claims 1, 8-12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Watanabe5 in view of Lei and Samoilov; IV. Claims 2-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over “Lei and possibly Samoilov . . . in view of Foster6”; and V. Claims 15, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Watanabe, Lei, and Samoilov in view of Redinbo.7 Ans. 3-17. REJECTION I Relying on Lei’s Figures 1 and 3 and the disclosure at column 2, lines 14-29, the Examiner found that Lei describes every limitation of claim 1. Ans. 3-4. With respect to the limitation “irradiative heating system comprising radiation lamps,” the Examiner finds: [A]lthough Applicant correctly notes that Lei cites the radiation lamps as the alternative, less attractive, means for heating, the fact that Lei cites the identical means for heating as required by Applicant’s claimed invention, in the alternative, cannot be discounted on the sole basis that Lei does not teach the claimed invention. Id. at 19-20. 4 U.S. Patent 6,455,814 B1 issued September 24, 2002. 5 Japan Patent Publication 6-204143 published July 22, 1994. We rely on the computer translation of record, as the Examiner and the Appellants have done so here. 6 U.S. Patent 5,273,588 issued December 28, 1993. 7 U.S. Patent 6,374,150 B2 issued April 16, 2002. App App beca mean the p App suita to be inclu rejec Lei’s of a outer eal 2010-0 lication 11 The App use Lei de s of an el edestal, w ellants, Le ble in Lei’ avoided. Thus, th Does Le ding “an i We agre tion is mis Lei’s Fig Figure 1 semicondu body 12, 11394 /242,299 ellants con scribes the ectrically p hich is not i discloses s disclose Id. at 14-1 e dispositi i describe rradiative e with the placed. ure 1 is re above dep ctor proce a processi tend, inte use of a h owered he a radiatio radiation d apparatu 5. ve issue ar a substrate heating sy Appellant produced icts a parti ssing appa ng chambe 8 r alia, that eater pede ating coil n lamp. A lamps not s, but rath ising from processin stem comp s that the E below: al cross-se ratus 10, w r 14, a sho Lei does stal resist mounted pp. Br. 13 in the con er as a pro these con g system a rising rad xaminer’ ction thro hich incl wer head not anticip ively heate within the . Accordi text as a co blem of th tentions is s recited i iation lam s anticipat ugh the up udes, inter 36, a sem ate d by body of ng to the mponent e prior art : n claim 1, ps”? ion per portio alia, an iconductor n App App wafe semi below Lei’s ll. 1- of an pede prior Figu as fo eal 2010-0 lication 11 r 20, rings conductor Regardin : Figure 3 3. Lei tea electrical stal.” Col While L art proces res 1 and 3 llows: 11394 /242,299 24 and 25 wafer 20. g the heat is said to b ches that “ ly powere . 6, ll. 19-2 ei disclose sing cham . Specific , and a he Col. 3, ll. er, Lei ref e the cros [t]he pede d heating c 1. s “heater l bers, not a ally, Lei d 9 ater pedest 65-67; co ers to Figu s-section o stal 16 is . oil 54 mo amps,” it i s part of t iscusses th al 16 that l. 4, ll. 14- re 3, whic f a heater . . resistiv unted with s in the co he apparat e problem serves to s 43. h is reprod pedestal 1 ely heated in the bod ntext of di us shown with hea upport the uced 6. Col. 4, by means y of the scussing in Lei’s ter lamps Appeal 2010-011394 Application 11/242,299 10 In many prior art processing chambers the wafer is heated from below by means of heater lamps. These heater lamps heat, by means of infrared radiation, a susceptor on which the substrate is supported within the chamber. One of the problems with this arrangement is that the susceptor (typically made of 8 millimeters thick aluminum with a ceramic support plate) has a relatively short lifespan. This means that it must be replaced, often as frequently as after 3,000 cycles, which results in increased labor costs and expensive downtime. Col. 2, ll. 15-26. These facts reveal that Lei does not disclose heater lamps as a component to be used in Lei’s semiconductor processing apparatus, as shown in Figure 1 or 3, but rather as a component previously used in the prior art that has certain disadvantages. Thus, we find that the Examiner failed to show that Lei describes every limitation within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). [U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Examiner also argues that Lei’s heating coil 54 provides both conductive and radiative heat transfer. Ans. 9. But even if the Examiner is correct on this point, we have not been directed to sufficient evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered “radiation lamps,” as that term is used in the Specification, to be inclusive of heating coils mounted within the body of a pedestal as shown in Lei. That is, the Examiner did not point to any enlightenment in the Appellants’ Appeal 2010-011394 Application 11/242,299 11 Specification or Drawings that would have informed one skilled in the relevant art that “radiation lamps” encompass heating coils mounted within the body of a pedestal. Indeed, as pointed out by the Appellants, App. Br. 14, the disclosure of Lei itself distinguishes heating coils from prior art heating lamps. Thus, to the extent that the Examiner construes the term “radiation lamps” as encompassing Lei’s heating coils, we conclude that such a claim construction is unreasonable. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant's specification.”). For these reasons, we cannot uphold the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1 as well as dependent claims 8, 9, 16-18, 21, and 24. REJECTION II The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 8, 9, 16-18, 21, and 24 in view of the combined teachings of Lei and Samoilov is another matter. As discussed above, Lei discloses that wafers in prior art processing chambers were heated by means of heating lamps. Col. 2, ll. 15-16. Although Lei states that the prior art use of heating lamps is disadvantageous in that the susceptor, when made of 8 mm thick aluminum with a ceramic support plate, has a relatively short lifespan (often 3,000 cycles), that is hardly the type of disclosure that constitutes a “teaching away” from the use of radiation lamps. Quite oppositely, successful use of radiation lamps for Appeal 2010-011394 Application 11/242,299 12 heating a backside of a susceptor is shown in Samoilov. Col. 3, ll. 16-45; Fig. 1. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that heating lamps are usable and viable as heating sources in semiconductor processing chambers, albeit the use thereof may require replacement of the susceptor, if made of 8 mm thick aluminum with a ceramic support plate, every 3,000 cycles. Cf. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“Even reading Yamaguchi's description as discouraging use of epoxy for this purpose, Gurley asserted no discovery beyond what was known to the art.”). Under these circumstances, we discern no harmful error in the Examiner’s conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to replace Lei’s heating coil with radiation lamps based on the expectation that radiation lamps would also provide successful heating of the susceptor, thus arriving at an apparatus encompassed by claim 1. “[C]ase law does not require that a particular combination must be the preferred, or the most desirable, combination described in the prior art in order to provide [the] motivation [or reason] for the current invention.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Appellants provide an additional argument for claims 8 and 9.8 App. Br. 18-19. Specifically, the Appellants contend the Examiner’s finding that element 36 of Lei’s Figure 1, a shower head, comprises a “reflective surface for reflecting light emanating from the region of the substrate support back towards the region of the substrate support,” as recited in claim 8 We select claim 8 as representative of these two claims and confine our discussion to this representative claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007). Appeal 2010-011394 Application 11/242,299 13 8, is not supported by the teachings of Lei because the “shower head . . . is clearly not a cover, and there is no teaching or suggestion in Lei that the shower head is comprises [sic] a reflective surface.” App. Br. 19. We do not find the Appellants’ argument with respect to claim 8 persuasive. Claim 8 recites, in relevant part, “the top cover comprising a reflective surface for reflecting light emanating from the region of the substrate support back towards the region of the substrate support.” We discern no reason why Lei’s element 36 cannot be considered as part of a “top cover,” as that term is used in claim 8. See Fig. 1. As to the reflective surface limitation, the Examiner found, based on known scientific principles, that all surfaces reflect some light. Ans. 5. The Appellants failed to successfully refute this finding with any description in the Specification that would serve to limit the degree of reflectivity; nor did they offer evidence or technical reasoning in contradiction of the Examiner’s position. With respect to separately argued claims 16 and 17, the Appellants urge that the claims require heating of the substrate to be performed exclusively by the irradiative heating system. App. Br. 19-20. We find this argument unpersuasive as well. When Lei’s heating coil is replaced with radiation lamps, as suggested by Samoilov, the heating would be performed exclusively by an irradiative heating system, as required by these claims. With respect to claim 24, the Appellants repeat the argument that Lei does not disclose a irradiative heating system. We reject this argument again for the reasons already given. App App rejec syste inde alrea rejec inter 12 in out t dissi heat, Wata react eal 2010-0 lication 11 The App tion of cla m [with] a ed teaches dy found t tion of cla The App alia, the E Figure 1 hat “Wata pation in t not a side Watanab nabe’s Fi ion chamb 11394 /242,299 ellants arg im 1, Lei d n irradiati away from hat the Ap im 1 are u ellants con xaminer’ is incorrec nabe[’s] el he lower p wall of the e’s Figure gure 1 abo er 7, a sus REJE ue: “As d oes not d ve heating such a sy pellants’ a npersuasiv REJECT tend that s finding r t. App. Br ement 12 art of the h chamber 1 is repro ve shows a ceptor 4 o 14 CTION IV iscussed a isclose or system co stem.” A rguments e, we uph IONS III the Exami egarding th . 22. Spe is a water- eating sta or a retain duced belo CVD sys n which a bove with suggest a s mprising pp. Br. 25 against th old Reject & V ner’s rejec e top of W cifically, th cooled jac ge 2 and t ing edge.” w: tem includ wafer 1 is respect to ubstrate p radiation l . Because e obviousn ion IV. tion fails b atanabe’s e Appella ket to prev o prevent Id. ing, inter placed, a the rocessing amps, and we have ess ecause, element nts point ent heat a rise in alia, a heating Appeal 2010-011394 Application 11/242,299 15 stage 2, a heater 3, a heater support 9, and a water-cooled jacket 12. ¶¶ [0010]-[0011]. As pointed out by the Appellants, the Examiner considers the top of water-cooled jacket 12 surrounding the lower part of heating stage 2 to be “the first retaining edge of the sidewall [of the processing chamber adapted for the formation of films on the substrate],” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 13. But Watanabe’s heating stage 12 is not “a processing chamber adapted for the formation of films on the substrate,” as recited in claim 1. The Examiner’s argument that Watanabe’s element 12 is not explicitly excluded from the claim does not alter the fact that the water-cooled jacket 12 is not a “sidewall surrounding the periphery of the [processing] chamber,” as required by claim 1. Even if the Examiner’s claim construction is assumed to be correct, the rejection still fails for the reasons given at pages 22-24 of the Appeal Brief. For these reasons, we cannot sustain Rejections III and V based on Watanabe as a principal reference. ORDER The rejection of as claims 1, 8, 9, 16-18, 21, and 24under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Lei is reversed. The rejection of claims 1, 8, 9, 16-18, 21, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lei in view of Samoilov is affirmed. The rejection of claims 1, 8-12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Lei and Samoilov is reversed. Appeal 2010-011394 Application 11/242,299 16 The rejection of claims 2-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over “Lei . . . and possibly Samoilov . . . in view of Foster” is affirmed. The rejection of claims 15, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Watanabe, Lei, and Samoilov in view of Redinbo is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART ssl