Oleg Serebryanov et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 31, 2020

13866505 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2020)

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.
13/866,505 04/19/2013 OLEG SEREBRYANOV 17039USA 7667
55649 7590 03/31/2020
Moser Taboada / Applied Materials, Inc.
1030 Broad Street
Suite 203
Shrewsbury, NJ 07702
EXAMINER
STAPLETON, ERIC S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2020 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):
ataboada@mtiplaw.com
docketing@mtiplaw.com
llinardakis@mtiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte OLEG SEREBRYANOV, JOSEPH M. RANISH, and
ALEXANDER GOLDIN

Appeal 2018-004331
Application 13/866,505
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

LANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision (entered May 11, 2017, “Final Act.”) to reject claims 1,
3–6, 9–15, and 18–21 (all the claims on appeal). Claims 2, 7, 8, 16, and 17
have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Applied
Materials, Incorporated. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2018-004331
Application 13/866,505

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter relates to “powering an array of lamps to
heat a substrate in various thermal processes, such as rapid thermal
processing (RTP), chemical vapor deposition (e.g., epitaxial deposition), or
other substrate processes that use lamps for heating.” Spec. ¶ 16. Claims 1
and 15 are independent. We reproduce claim 1 below as an example of the
claimed subject matter on appeal with emphasis added to the recited
language that is central to Appellant’s argument.
1. An apparatus for heating a substrate in a process chamber,
comprising:
a plurality of lamp groups, each of the plurality of lamp
groups comprising one or more sets of lamps to provide radiant
energy to heat a substrate when disposed in the process chamber,
wherein each set of lamps comprises a plurality of lamps, all of
the plurality of lamps being wired in series within the each set of
lamps, and wherein the each set of lamps is wired in parallel with
respect to other sets of lamps within the one or more sets of
lamps;
a plurality of DC to DC converters, coupled to each of the
plurality of lamp groups, to step down voltage to the each of the
plurality of lamp groups;
a three-phase alternating current (AC) power source to
produce a three-phase AC input voltage;
a lamp driver, coupled to the three-phase AC power source
and to all of the plurality of lamp groups, to control the plurality
of lamp groups, each lamp driver comprising a rectifier, coupled
to the AC power source to convert the three-phase AC input
voltage to DC voltage; and
a filter capacitor, coupled to the lamp driver and all of the
plurality of lamp groups, that filters the DC voltage from the
rectifier.

Appeal 2018-004331
Application 13/866,505

3
EVIDENCE
Name Reference Date
Neulinger et al. US 4,873,620 Oct. 10, 1989
Knoot US 2003/0029859 A1 Feb. 13, 2003
Hadizad US 2005/0029993 A1 Feb. 10, 2005
Camm US 2005/0179354 A1 Aug. 18, 2005
Shimizu et al. US 2008/0187299 A1 Aug. 07, 2008
Ramachandran et al. US 2010/0308729 A1 Dec. 09, 2010
Newman, Jr. US 2011/0121752 A1 May 26, 2011
Goldin et al. US 2011/0206358 A1 Aug. 25, 2011
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Knoot, Goldin, and Shimizu.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Knoot, Goldin, Shimizu, and Neulinger.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Knoot,
Goldin, Shimizu, Neulinger, and Newman.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Knoot,
Goldin, Shimizu, and Hadizad.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Knoot,
Goldin, Shimizu, and Ramachandran.
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Knoot, Goldin, Shimizu, and Camm.

Appeal 2018-004331
Application 13/866,505

4
ANALYSIS
For independent claims 1 and 15, the Examiner finds Knoot discloses
several of the recited elements for the claimed apparatus and method to heat
a substrate in a process chamber. Final Act. 2–3 (citing Knoot ¶¶ 38, 40, 42,
44, 50, Fig. 2). In particular, regarding Knoot, the Examiner finds that it
discloses “a lamp group (e.g., lamps 1–6) comprising one or more sets of
lamps to provide radiant energy to heat a substrate when disposed in the
process chamber, and wherein each set of lamps is wired in parallel with
respect to other sets of lamps.” Id. at 2 (citing Knoot ¶ 50, Fig. 2) (emphasis
added); see also id. at 11–12. But the Examiner finds Knoot is insufficient
to evidence the following elements:
a plurality of lamp groups, that each set of lamps comprises a
plurality of lamps wired in series within the set of lamps, and a
plurality of lamp drivers connected to the AC power source,
wherein each lamp driver is respectively coupled to a
corresponding lamp group of the plurality of lamp groups.
Final Act. 2–3, 4.
For these missing elements, the Examiner first turns to Goldin and
finds it to disclose “a plurality of lamp groups . . . and a plurality of lamp
drivers . . . connected to the AC power source . . ., wherein each lamp driver
is respectively coupled to a corresponding lamp group of the plurality of
lamp groups.” Id. at 4 (citing Goldin ¶¶ 25, 29, 30, Fig. 1). The Examiner
determines that a skilled artisan would have known to modify the apparatus
of Knoot with the above elements “in order to maintain a desired voltage
across the lamps.” Id. (citing Goldin ¶ 32). The Examiner turns next to
Shimizu and finds that it discloses “sets of lamps . . . wherein each set of
lamps comprises a plurality of lamps wired in series with the set of lamps.”
Id. at 5 (citing Shimizu ¶¶ 101, 104, Figs. 7, 9). The Examiner determines
Appeal 2018-004331
Application 13/866,505

5
that a skilled artisan would have known to modify further the modified
apparatus of Knoot, in view of Goldin, to incorporate the above Shimizu
teaching “in order to reduce the power supply equipment.” Id. (citing
Shimizu ¶ 104). The Examiner summarizes the above combination as
follows:
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
have modified the lamp group and lamp driver configuration of
Knoot to have each lamp group connected to a lamp driver as
taught by Goldin in order to maintain a desired voltage across
the lamps and that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the sets of lamps of
Knoot to have a plurality lamps wired in series within each set
as taught by Shimizu in order to reduce the power supply
equipment
Ans. 2–3.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s evidence and reasoning is
insufficient to show that a skilled artisan would have modified the apparatus
of Knoot, in view of Goldin and Shimizu, to reconfigure the wiring of the
lamp sets to be both series within the sets and parallel between the sets.
Appeal Br. 7–13.
Appellant “disagree[s] with the Examiner’s conclusion that Knoot
discloses ‘wherein each set of lamps is wired in parallel with respect to other
sets of lamps’ because Figure 2 and paragraph 50 clearly disclose that the
lamps within the Zone are wired in parallel, while the actual Zones are
provided varying signals, unrelated to each other.” Id. at 7. Appellant
contends that, although “the lamps 1-6 within Zone A are wired parallel to
each other,” “the actual Zones A–E do not have a parallel wiring relationship
with each other.” Id. In other words, Appellant argues that Knoot describes
Appeal 2018-004331
Application 13/866,505

6
a set that has lamps wired in parallel, but it does not disclose a set of lamps
wired in parallel with respect to another set of lamps.
The Examiner clarifies that the rejection relies on forming multiple
sets within the Zone, rather than each Zone having a single set. In other
words, the Examiner finds that the six lamps within Zone A could be
considered two sets of three lamps, which would be wired in parallel with
respect to each other because all of the lamps in the Zone are wired in
parallel. Ans. 4. The Examiner supports this position by pointing to the
teaching in paragraph 51 of Knoot, which explains that the lamps of each
zone may have two different select signals applied to them (e.g., “Signal 1 is
applied to Lamps 1, 3 and 5 of Zone A, while Signal 2 is applied Lamps 2, 4
and 6 of Zone A”). Id. Appellant’s argument in this regard is not
commensurate with the Examiner’s rejection because it focuses on the
wiring between Zones, rather than between lamps within each Zone, which
the Examiner identifies as forming the multiple sets.
Appellant, however, argues that the Examiner’s reasoning to modify
the wiring of the lamp sets within the zones of Knoot in the manner claimed
is also deficient. Appeal Br. 8–13. This is so, Appellant argues, because
Shimizu teaches wiring all of the lamps in series to derive the benefit of
reducing the power supply equipment. Id. at 8–11. Appellant argues
additionally that modifying the wiring of the alleged sets of lamps in the
Zones of Knoot to be in series would render Knoot inoperable for its
intended purpose. Id. at 11–13. Appellant contends that the proposed
modification would entirely change the operation of Knoot, which teaches a
control scheme that relies on individually controlling each lamp. Id. at 12.
“That is, in Knoot the programming can be changed to implement different
Appeal 2018-004331
Application 13/866,505

7
processes or even during processing because each radiant energy source can
be delivered a different/respective power signal.” Reply Br. 4. Appellant
contends, “if the radiant energy sources in each set were connected in series,
each of the radiant energy sources in that series would receive a same signal,
which is not desirable in and would destroy the utility of the invention of
Knoot.” Id. at 5.
We agree the Examiner’s articulated reason, “to reduce the power
supply equipment,” is alone insufficient to explain why a skilled artisan
would have modified the wiring of Knoot’s the lamps zones in the manner
claimed. Knoot describes a switching array that includes a switch at each
lamp to control the application of power to the lamps. Knoot ¶ 45. A lamp
select signal is provided to an assignment matrix that selectively controls the
delivery of power to each lamp based the programming of the matrix. Id. ¶
47. The lamp select signals are delivered to the respective switches of the
individual lamps that are assigned to the same control zone. Id. The
assignment matrix determines which switches of the switching array are in
the particular groups or zones. Id. ¶ 48. The programmable array can be
programmed to accommodate any configuration of lamp zones and/or to
control individual lamps. Id. Knoot teaches that the “programmability
allows for rapid customization of lamphead assemblies for different process
needs” and “can be changed to implement different processes or even during
processing.” Id. ¶ 53.
Shimizu teaches to connect all of the lamps on a substrate in series to
reduce the power supply equipment, which would necessarily limit the
control of the lamps on the substrate and restrict the ability to control
individually the lamps on the substrate. In view of Knoot’s teaching of a
Appeal 2018-004331
Application 13/866,505

8
scheme that allows for rapid customization by individually controlling each
lamp, we agree with Appellant that it is unclear why a skilled artisan would
have modified the wiring to the lamps for sets of lamps wired in series. To
the contrary, modifying the lamps to be in series would actually undermine
Knoot’s stated purpose of being able to control individually each lamp to
accommodate any configuration of lamp zones. As a result, the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 1 and 15 is improper.
Therefore, because the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1
and 15 is deficient and the Examiner does not rely on Goldin, Neulinger,
Newman, Hadizad, Ramachandran, or Camm to cure the deficiency, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3–6, 9–15, and 18–21 (all
the claims on appeal).
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 10,
11, 14, 15,
18, 19, 21
103 Knoot, Goldin,
Shimizu
1, 3, 10, 11,
14, 15, 18,
19, 21
4, 5 103 Knoot, Goldin,
Shimizu, Neulinger
4, 5
6 103 Knoot, Goldin,
Shimizu, Neulinger,
Newman
6
9 103 Knoot, Goldin,
Shimizu, Hadizad
9
12 103 Knoot, Goldin,
Shimizu,
Ramachandran
12
13, 20 103 Knoot, Goldin,
Shimizu, Camm
13, 20
Appeal 2018-004331
Application 13/866,505

9
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–6, 9–
15, 18–21

REVERSED