Ex Parte Wang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 27, 201714246915 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/246,915 04/07/2014 AnchuanWang 80042-20609USAC01-0899215 1869 57385 7590 11/29/2017 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP / AMAT Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 Peachtree Street Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309 EXAMINER KENDALL, BENJAMIN R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1718 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/29/2017 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): ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com KT S Docketing2 @ kilpatrick. foundationip .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANCHUAN WANG, XINGLONG CHEN, ZIHUI LI, HIROSHI HAMANA, ZHIJUN CHEN, CHING-MEI HSU, JIAYIN HUANG, NITIN K. INGLE, DMITRY LUBOMIRSKY, SHANKAR VENKATARAMAN, and RANDHIR THAKUR Appeal 2017-001219 Application 14/246,915 Technology Center 1700 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2017-001219 Application 14/246,915 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the Final Rejection of claims 1—9, 14—19, 21 and 22. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appellants’ invention is directed to systems and methods for reducing film contamination and improving device quality (Spec. 12). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A combination processing chamber, the chamber comprising: a lower chamber housing, wherein the lower chamber comprises: a first access on a first side of the lower chamber housing, and a second access on a second side of the lower chamber housing opposite the first side of the lower chamber housing; and an upper chamber housing coupled with the lower chamber housing, wherein the upper chamber housing comprises: a third access on a first side of the upper chamber housing coinciding with the first side of the lower chamber housing, an upper processing region at least partially defined from above by a faceplate disposed within the upper chamber housing, an upper distribution region at least partially defined between an upper portion of the upper chamber housing and defined from below by the faceplate, wherein the upper distribution region comprises a central distribution region and an edge distribution region partitioned from and radially distal to the central distribution region, a gas inlet assembly positioned within the upper portion of the upper chamber housing and configured to deliver precursors into the upper distribution region, wherein the gas inlet assembly is at least partially characterized by a cylindrical shape, wherein a lower portion of the gas inlet assembly defines a plurality of gas delivery apertures radially distributed about the lower portion of the gas in let assembly, and a fluid deliver channel defined within the upper portion of the upper chamber housing, which fluidly couples the edge distribution region with gas delivery apertures of the gas inlet assembly. 2 Appeal 2017-001219 Application 14/246,915 Appellants appeal the following maintained rejections1: 1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 9 are rejected 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kim (US 2013/0026135 Al; Jan. 31, 2013) in view of Antonelli et al. (US 2010/0317198 Al; Dec. 16, 2010), and Chou et al. (US 2004/0103844 Al; June 3, 2004). 2. Claims 3, 6—8, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kim in view of Antonelli, Chou, and Kawaguchi et al. (US 7,655,571 B2; Feb. 2, 2010). 3. Claims 14—16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kim in view of Antonelli, Chou and Wang (US 2011/0151677 Al; June 23, 2011). 4. Claims 17—19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kim in view of Antonelli, Chou and Kijima et al. (US 2014/0191618 Al; July 10, 2014). FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1, except for a gas inlet assembly that is at least partially characterized by a cylindrical shape, and wherein a lower portion of the gas inlet assembly defines a plurality of gas delivery apertures radially distributed about the lower portion of the gas inlet assembly (Final Act. 4—5). The Examiner finds that Antonelli teaches a gas inlet assembly having the structure required by claim 1 (Final Act. 5). The Examiner concludes that it would 1 The rejection of claim 12 under 35USC§112, fourth paragraph, is rendered moot by the cancellation of claim 12 in the amendment filed concurrently with the Appeal Brief on September 28, 2015. 3 Appeal 2017-001219 Application 14/246,915 have been obvious to modify the gas inlet of Kim with the gas inlet assembly of Antonelli to distribute gas in a desired pattern (Final Act. 5). The Examiner finds that Kim as modified by Antonelli does not teach the upper distribution region comprises a central distribution region and an edge distribution region partitioned from and radially distal to the central distribution region, and a fluid delivery channel defined within the upper portion of the upper chamber housing, which fluidly couples the edge distribution region with gas delivery apertures of the gas inlet assembly (Final Act. 6). The Examiner finds that Chou teaches a gas separator 203 connected via conduit 2022 (which the Examiner finds to correspond to the fluid delivery channel) defined within the upper portion of the upper chamber housing (i.e., the conduit 2022 contacts the top plate 204) (Final Act. 6). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the upper distribution region of modified Kim with the partitioned upper distribution region of Chou in order to facilitate greater control of gas flow such that one may tune to whatever processing conditions occur (Final Act. 6). Appellants argue that Chou’s piping 2022 and gas separator 203 are external to the chamber (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 5). Appellants contend that the Examiner’s proposed modification of Kim using Antonelli’s gas inlet 300 would have placed the gas inlet 300 within Kim’s inlet pipe 2620, which would be internal to the device (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 4, 5). Appellants argue that there is no teaching or suggestion in the art to connect modified Kim’s internally positioned gas inlet 300 having a cylindrical insert with gas dispersing holes 302 with Chou’s externally positioned piping to direct gas to the edge of the processing area (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 5—6). Appellants 4 Appeal 2017-001219 Application 14/246,915 contend that the Examiner engaged in impermissible hindsight in concluding that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Kim, Antonelli and Chou (Reply Br. 8). On this record, we are persuaded that the Examiner has failed to establish the unpatentability of the claims. The Examiner’s rejection does not explain sufficiently how one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Kim’s gas inlet pipe 2620 having Antonelli’s gas inlet 300 positioned therein and, thus, internal to the system, so that the holes 302 in the gas inlet would be connected using Chou’s piping 2022 that is external to the system. The Examiner in the Final Action appears to find that Kim’s upper distribution region would have been modified by using Chou’s “partitioned upper distribution region” to facilitate greater control of gas flow such that one may tune to whatever processing conditions occur (Final Act. 6). In the Answer, the Examiner expounds on how the teachings of Kim, Antonelli and Chou are being combined (Ans. 15—16). The Examiner explains that Chou is merely cited to teach a central distribution region, an edge distribution region and a fluid delivery channel defined within the upper portion of the upper chamber housing, which fluidly couples the edge distribution region with gas delivery apertures of the gas inlet assembly (Ans. 15). The Examiner further explains that the proposed modification of Kim’s apparatus as modified to include Antonelli’s gas inlet 300, includes adding Chou’s piping 2021, 2022, plate 204 and O-ring 205 for the purpose of facilitating greater control of gas flow such that one may tune to whatever processing conditions occur (Ans. 15—16). The Examiner’s rejection plainly relies upon modifying Antonelli’s gas inlet 300 by adding piping 2021 and 5 Appeal 2017-001219 Application 14/246,915 2022 from Chou to direct gas from the gas inlet to the edge deposition region. Antonelli discloses that the gas inlet 300 is used to distribute a desired gas into an internal volume of the remote plasma source 200 in a desired pattern (| 26). Antonelli further discloses that the gas inlet 300 may be connected to a multi-channel gas box to allow desired gases or gas mixtures to be delivered to the gas inlet 300 (127). Antonelli already achieves a desired gas pattern in the plasma chamber using the gas inlet. Chou teaches a gas distributing system for distributing plasma gas inside a wafer reaction chamber so that the wafer inside is uniformly processed (17). Chou teaches a system for automatically adjusting the flow of plasma gas inside a reaction chamber so that the same degree of uniformity can be achieved for a wafer undergoing a different fabrication process (1 8). Chou uses a gas separator 203 and piping 2021 and 2022 to direct gas to the different regions of gas nozzles to control the treatment of the wafer 7, 8, 10, 24). Chou’s gas separator 203 includes an inflow gas conduit 301 and two outflow gas conduits 302 and 303 as shown in Figure 5 (126). Valves 304 and 305 adjust the flow rate in the conduits 302 and 303 (126). Chou teaches the system for achieving the desired balance in flow of the plasma gas on the wafer. The Examiner does not explain why, absent impermissible hindsight, one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Antonelli’s gas inlet 300 that is cylindrical and has holes in the bottom with Kim and then modified the gas inlet 300 to have Chou’s piping structure connected thereto. Antonelli teaches using the holes 302 in the gas inlet to achieve a desired pattern in the plasma chamber, which is the 6 Appeal 2017-001219 Application 14/246,915 Examiner’s reason for modifying Kim with Antonelli (Antonelli, 126; Final Act. 5). Connecting some of the holes with Chou’s piping 2021 and 2022 would appear to frustrate that purpose as argued by Appellants (App.Br. 10). On this record, we find that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the sole independent claim 1. In light of this finding, we reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejections (1) to (3) of record. DECISION The Examiner’s decision is reversed. ORDER REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation