Ex Parte Tam et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2018

12856747 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/856,747 08/16/2010 Alexander Tam
44257 7590 08/02/2018
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP- -Applied Materials
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
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.
015324.02/AEP/NEON/ESONG 2764
EXAMINER
YU, YUECHUAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1718
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2018 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):
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 ALEXANDER TAM, ANZHONG CHANG, and
SUMEDHACHARYA 1
Appeal2017---003802
Application 12/856,747
Technology Center 1700
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Applied Materials, Inc.
Appeal2017-003802
Application 12/856,747
Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-9, 11-16, and 21. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants' subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below:
1. A showerhead assembly, comprising:
a top wall;
a showerhead;
a first gas manifold formed between the top wall and the
showerhead, wherein a plurality of first gas conduits extend
through the showerhead and fluidly coupling the first gas
manifold to an exit surface of the showerhead and a central
conduit is formed through the top wall and showerhead,
wherein the central conduit is configured to flow a process gas
out the exit surface of the showerhead while bypassing the first
gas manifold;
a plurality of gas distribution devices formed in an array in
the top wall about the central conduit, each gas distribution
device fluidly interconnected by a plurality of second gas
conduits, each gas distribution device having a center portion
circumscribed by a cylindrical body; and
an annular gas passage that is formed between the center
portion and the cylindrical body and that is in fluid
communication with the first gas manifold, wherein each
annular gas passage is ring shaped and tapers downwards to the
first gas manifold, and wherein each gas distribution device is
in fluid communication with each first gas conduit.
2
Appeal2017-003802
Application 12/856,747
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Nguyen US 6,444,039 B 1
(hereafter "Nguyen '039")
Nguyen US 2003/0116087 Al
(hereafter "Nguyen '087'')
Lind US 6,883,733 Bl
Takagi US 2005/0118737 Al
Armour US 2006/0021574 Al
Matsumoto US 2006/0021568 Al
Sano US 2008/0264337 Al
Oba JP 5-152208
Kanekiyo JP 2000-306889
Yamada JP 2008-66662
Sasaki JP 2008-177428
Okada JP 2010-59520
THE REJECTIONS
Sept. 3, 2002
June 26, 2003
Apr. 26, 2005
June 2, 2005
Feb.2,2006
Feb.2,2006
Oct. 30, 2008
June 18, 1993
Nov. 2, 2000
Mar. 21, 2008
July 31, 2008
Mar. 18, 2010
1. Claim 1 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sano, in view of Sasaki, Takagi and Lind.
2. Claim 1 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Kanekiyo, in view of Sasaki, Takagi and Lind.
3. Claim 1 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Sasaki, in view of Takagi, Oba and Lind.
4. Claims 1, 3, 9, and 11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Sasaki, in view of Matsumoto and Lind.
3
Appeal2017-003802
Application 12/856,747
5. Claims 3-6 and 11-13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Sasaki, in view of Matsumoto and Lind
as applied to claims 1 and 9 and further in view of Nguyen '039 and Nguyen
'087.
6. Claims 7, 8, and 14--16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Sasaki, in view of Matsumoto and Lind,
as applied to claims 1 and 9, and further in view of Armour or in the
alternative, in view of Okada.
7. Claim 21 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sasaki, in view of Matsumoto, Lind, and Yamada.
ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence, and each of the respective
positions set forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of evidence
on this record supports Appellants' position for essentially the reasons
provided by Appellants, with the following emphasis.
Rejection 1
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner's proposed incorporation
of the teachings of Sasaki into the assembly of Sano as modified by Takagi
does not meet the claim limitation of "a plurality of gas distribution devices
formed in an array in the top wall about the central conduit" associated with
the claimed showerhead, as recited in Appellant's claim 1. Appeal Br. 14.
4
Appeal2017-003802
Application 12/856,747
Appellants explain that the positioning of gas supplying sections 5 ( as
shown in Sasaki's Figures 3 and 4) is only necessitated by the fact that there
are a plurality of diffusion spaces 44 partitioned by beams 43a and 43b,
which form three diffusions spaces 44a--44c. As such, Appellants state that
if Sasaki included only a single gas manifold ( as in the present claims),
Sasaki teaches only a single gas supplying section 5 having gas supplying
path 52. Appeal Br. 14. We agree. As such, we agree that there is
insufficient suggestion found in Sasaki to modify Sano as modified by
Takagi to meet the claim limitation of "a plurality of gas distribution devices
formed in an array in the top wall about the central conduit."
Furthermore, we agree with Appellants that the reliance upon the
teachings of Lind to modify the shape of the gas distribution device of the
combination of Sano, Sasaki, and Takagi lacks proper motivation because
there is no motivation to change gas supplying path 52 in Sasaki to the gas
injection annular opening in Lind that extends in a straight line down the
showerhead arrangement because Sasaki' s particular gas distribution device
configuration is critical to the objectives of Sasaki for the reasons provided
by Appellants on pages 14--15 of the Appeal Brief, and on page 4 of the
Reply Brief.
In view of the above, we reverse Rejection 1.
Rejections 2-7
Each of Rejections 2-7 involves the combination of Sasaki and Lind.
As stated, supra, we agree with Appellants that there is no motivation to
change gas supplying path 52 in Sasaki to the gas injection annular opening
5
Appeal2017-003802
Application 12/856,747
in Lind that extends in a straight line down the showerhead arrangement
because Sasaki' s particular gas distribution device configuration is critical to
the objectives of Sasaki. Appeal Br. 18-19, 20-21, 24--25.
We thus reverse Rejections 2-7.
DECISION
Each rejection is reversed.
ORDER
REVERSED
6