Ex Parte Kuibira et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 18, 200910249473 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 18, 2009) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte AKIRA KUIBIRA, MASUHIRO NATSUHARA, and HIROHIKO NAKATA ____________ Appeal 2009-002539 Application 10/249,473 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Decided: August 18, 2009 ____________ Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judges. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-002539 Application 10/249,473 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15-17, and 19.1 (App. Br. 6). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. THE INVENTION Appellants describe a workpiece holder employed in semiconductor manufacturing apparatuses. (Spec. [0002]). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A retaining member for use in a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, the retaining member comprising: a wafer holder made of a ceramic in which a resistive heating element is embedded; and a support member for supporting said wafer holder without being physically joined thereto, in order to curb heat, generated by said resistive heating element, from escaping through said support member, said support smaller in diametric dimension than that of said wafer holder and fabricated so that its thermal conductivity is lower than that of said wafer holder; wherein the thermal expansion coefficient difference between said wafer holder and said support is 2.0 x 10-6/°C or less. THE REJECTIONS The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Son US 5,846,891 Dec. 8, 1998 Kholodenko US 6,310,755 B1 Oct. 30, 2001 1 Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, and 18 have been canceled. (Appeal Brief filed April 30, 2008, hereinafter “App. Br.,” 6). 2 Appeal 2009-002539 Application 10/249,473 Yokoyama US 6,414,271 B2 Jul. 2, 2002 Divakar US 2002/0185487 A1 Dec. 12, 2002 The grounds of rejection on appeal are as follows: (1) the Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15-17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Divakar; (2) the Examiner rejected claims 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Divakar in view of Kholodenko or alternatively in view of Yokoyama, and (3) the Examiner rejected claims 10 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Divakar in view of Son. In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner found that Divakar discloses a resistive heater embedded in a thermally conductive ceramic layer, and a smaller dimensioned support shaft. (Examiner’s Answer entered May 13, 2008, hereinafter “Ans.,” 3). The Examiner determined that one of ordinary skill in the art would have constructed Divakar’s ceramic heater without physically joining the ceramic layer and support shaft because making elements separable would have been obvious, and omission of an element and its corresponding function is within the level of ordinary skill. (Ans. 4). In support, the Examiner reasoned: “[i]n this instance not joining the wafer holder to support member is an omission from [the] normal practice of joining of the two as admitted by applicant (Paragraph 11).” (Id.). The Examiner also stated: “[t]he consequence of not joining is loss of seal, risk of instability and limited use (only in a non corrosive atmosphere). On the other hand not joining gives the freedom that [the] wafer holder and support could have different thermal coefficients of expansion. These issues have been obviously known to persons of ordinary skill in the art.” (Id.). 3 Appeal 2009-002539 Application 10/249,473 Appellants contend that Divakar is directed to a three part structure, upper high thermoconductive plate 12, lower support member 18, and shaft 26, while claim 1 is a two part structure. (App. Br. 10). Appellants argue that Divakar discloses that support member 18 and shaft 26 are physically joined. (Id.). Appellants also contend that Divakar does not disclose that the support is smaller in diametric dimension, because plate 12 and support member 18 are disclosed to have equal diameters. (Id.). Appellants argue that the comparative examples in the Specification show superior temperature uniformity when the wafer holder and support member are not physically joined. (App. Br. 10-11). Last, Appellants contend that the claimed structure is not an omission of an element with the omission of its function, but a unique structural configuration with a functional advantage. (App. Br. 11). ISSUE Have Appellants shown that the Examiner reversibly erred in determining that it would have been obvious to construct the ceramic heater of Divakar without physically joining the ceramic heater to the support shaft as recited in the appealed claims? FINDINGS OF FACT The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a preponderance of the evidence. 1. Divakar discloses a ceramic heater 10 with a heating element 16 embedded therein, that includes a shaft 26 made of thermally 4 Appeal 2009-002539 Application 10/249,473 insulative material for supporting plate 12, with or without layer 18. (Para. [0050]; Fig. 1). 2. Divakar discloses that shaft is added to the heater plate “by techniques known in the art, such as brazing or diffusion bonding.” (Para. [0055]). 3. Figure 1 of Divakar shows that shaft 26 has a diameter smaller in diametric dimension than ceramic heater 10. (Fig. 1). 4. The Examiner stated: From the reading of Divakar et al two issues stand out. First the ceramic heater of the wafer holder should have as high thermal conductivity as possible and should be as thermally isolated from [the] support structure as possible. The reason for this being to reduce thermal gradients by allowing heat to conduct laterally and prevent it to flow vertically to [the] support structure so as to increase temperature uniformity at the support surface of the ceramic heater. Divakar et al suggest using high thermal conductivity doped ceramic Aluminum Nitride for the material of heater 12. Divakar et al further teach layer 18 or material of support 26 as [being] thermally insulative. (Ans. 7). 5. The Examiner stated: As is known in the art, if a structure undergoing temperature change is composed of two parts they should have as close CTE (Coefficient of thermal expansion) as possible[,] [s]ince unequal thermal expansion could cause mechanical warping or failure like delamination or separation. (Ans. 7-8). 6. The Examiner stated: Regarding the issue of the wafer holder not being physically joined to the support member, it is obvious that in this arrangement [the] wafer holder and support member do not 5 Appeal 2009-002539 Application 10/249,473 have to have similar CTE, so the support could have as high thermal insulation as possible without worrying about CTE. Further [,] by having the wafer holder sit on the support member causes additional insulation (depending on the surface smoothness) [,] which helps to reduce [the] thermal gradient across the surface of the wafer holder. (Ans. 8). 7. Appellants do not dispute the above statements made by the Examiner. (See App. Br. generally, and FF 4-6). PRINCIPLES OF LAW In KSR, the Supreme Court explained, “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103 likely bars its patentability.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421. Appellants have the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error in the Examiner's position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection [under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). 6 Appeal 2009-002539 Application 10/249,473 ANALYSIS Appellants have do not separately argue the claims subject to the first ground of rejection. Accordingly, we confine our discussion to appealed claim 1, which contains claim limitations representative of the arguments made by Appellants pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).2 In addition, Appellants have not presented separate arguments for the second and third grounds of rejection. Therefore, our comments regarding the first ground of rejection apply equally to the second and third grounds of rejection. Appellants have not challenged the Examiner’s reasoning that it would have been obvious to have constructed Divakar’s ceramic heater without physically joining the ceramic layer and support shaft. In particular, Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s statement that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that not physically joining the wafer holder and support shaft would allow for high thermal insulation without having to ensure that the wafer holder and support member have similar CTE. (FF 6). Nor do Appellants dispute that the result of physical separation would have been predictable. (Ans. 8). Thus, Appellants have not satisfied their burden to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s underlying rationale in support of the obviousness rejection. Moreover, Appellants’ contentions that the presently claimed retaining member provides the advantage of lower thermal conductivity, and that the examples disclosed in the Specification demonstrate superior temperature uniformity, are not persuasive. (Ans. 11 and 12). Appellants 2 Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007). 7 Appeal 2009-002539 Application 10/249,473 have not shown that such improvements would have been unexpected. To the contrary, in view of the Examiner’s undisputed statements (FF 5 and 6), the advantages of not physically joining the wafer holder and support member would have been expected. We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the recited retaining member is distinguished from Divakar as being a two-part structure, while Divakar discloses a three-part structure. Appellant argues limitations that are not present in claim 1. The wafer holder in claim 1 is only required to be made out of ceramic and to have a resistive heating element embedded therein. Thus, Divakar’s ceramic heater including elements 12 and 18 reads on Appellants’ claimed “wafer holder.” (See Ans. 7). In addition, Divakar discloses that element 18 is optional. (FF 1; Ans. 7). Appellants’ argument that Divakar fails to disclose that the support member has a smaller diameter than the wafer holder is not well taken. Appellants base their argument on the position that elements 12 and 18 are disclosed by Divakar as having equal diameters. However, as admitted by Appellants, elements 12 and 18 make up the wafer holder. (App. Br. 10). Thus, Appellants’ argument is not relevant to the recited relationship between the wafer holder and support. As is clear from Figure 1 in Divakar, shaft 26 is smaller in diameter than ceramic heater 10. (FF 3). Therefore, Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. CONCLUSION Appellants have failed to demonstrate that the Examiner reversibly erred in determining that it would have been obvious to construct the 8 Appeal 2009-002539 Application 10/249,473 ceramic heater of Divakar without physically joining the ceramic heater to the support shaft as recited in the appealed claims. ORDER We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15-17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Divakar. We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Divakar in view of Kholodenko or alternatively in view of Yokoyama. We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 10 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Divakar in view of Son. 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)(v). AFFIRMED tc JUDGE PATENT ASSOCIATES DOJIMA BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR 6-8 NISHITEMMA 2-CHOME, KITA-KU OSAKA-SHI 530-0-047 JP JAPAN 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation