Ex Parte Kuibira et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 18, 2009

10249473 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 18, 2009)

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