Andrew Stratton. Bravo et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 24, 2019

15151650 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2019)

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.
15/151,650 05/11/2016 Andrew Stratton Bravo 3907-1US 8207
91286 7590 10/24/2019
Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (Lam)
P.O. Box 828
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303
EXAMINER
ZERVIGON, RUDY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/24/2019 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
sstevens@hdp.com
troymailroom@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE
THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte ANDREW STRATTON BRAVO,1
Joydeep Guha, and Jatinder Kumar
________________

Appeal 2018-006871
Application 15/151,650
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Lam Research Corporation (“Bravo”) timely appeals
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection2 of all pending claims 1
and 5–10. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6. We reverse.

1 The applicant under 37 C.F.R. § 1.46 (Application Data Sheet,
filed 11 May 2016), and hence the appellant under 35 U.S.C. § 134, is the
real party in interest, identified as Lam Research Corporation. (Appeal
Brief, filed 6 March 2018 (“Br.”), 3.)
2 Office Action mailed 16 October 2017 (“Final Rejection”; cited as “FR”).
Appeal 2018-006871
Application 15/151,650

2
OPINION
A. Introduction3
The subject matter on appeal relates to controlling the delivery of
gaseous process materials in semiconductor wafer processing devices.
Typically, a gas-distribution device, such as a “showerhead,” is arranged
over a substrate, such as a semiconductor wafer. Various gases may be
introduced, and a plasma lit by RF-induction. (Spec. 1 [0003]–[0004].)
Uniformity of the substrate is said to be dependent upon flow uniformity,
especially at the edges. (Id. at 4, ¶ [0018].) The process of directing gases
at the outer region of the substrate is referred to as “side tuning.” (Id.)
Moreover, the ability to change faceplates with particular hole distributions
for particular processes is said to be desirable but time-consuming.
(Id. at [0019].)
The inventors seek patent protection for showerheads, an embodiment
of which is illustrated in Figures 4 and 5, reproduced on the next page. This
showerhead addresses some of the issues raised supra by having two rings
of holes surrounding the center of faceplate 4004, that side-tune gases, which
may be the same or different, by directing them at different angles towards
the edges of the substrate. More particularly, inner ring 420 and outer
ring 424 are fed gases via plenums—here, grooves 448, 440, respectively—
which, through plural holes 428, 432, respectively, direct gases at different

3 Application 15/151,650, Adjustable side gas plenum for edge rate control
in a downstream reactor, filed 11 May 2016. We refer to the
“′650 Specification,” which we cite as “Spec.”.
4 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, labels to elements are presented in
bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
Appeal 2018-006871
Application 15/151,650

3
angles towards the edges of substrate 412. Furthermore, rings 420 and 424
are detachable from one another and from faceplate 400 (id. at 12–
13 [0042]–[0043], allowing for ready side tuning by changing the relative
orientations of the inner and outer rings, as shown in Figures 6A–6G (not
reproduced here).
{Figures 4 and 5 are shown below}

{Figure 4 shows a cross-section through a showerhead of the invention}
{Figure 5 shows a top-down view of a showerhead of the invention}
Appeal 2018-006871
Application 15/151,650

4
Claim 1 is representative and reads:
A side tuning ring [404] for a gas distribution device of a
substrate processing system, the side tuning ring comprising:
a first ring [420]
adjacent to a faceplate [400] of the gas distribution
device, wherein the first ring
surrounds the faceplate and
defines a first plenum [448], and the first ring
communicates with a first gas source and
includes a first plurality of holes [444] arranged to
direct gas from the first gas source into a process
chamber at a first angle; and
a second ring [424]
adjacent to the first ring [420],
wherein the second ring surrounds the first ring and
defines a second plenum [440], and the second ring
communicates with
at least one of the first gas source and
a second gas source and
includes a second plurality of holes [436] arranged
to direct gas from the at least one of the first gas
source and the second gas source into the process
chamber at a second angle,
wherein the first ring [420] and the second ring [424] are
detachable from the faceplate [400] of the gas
distribution device,
wherein the first ring [420] is detachable from the second
ring [424], and
wherein the first angle and the second angle are different.
(Claims App., Br. 18; some formatting, emphasis, and bracketed labels to
elements shown in Figures 4 and 5 added.)
Appeal 2018-006871
Application 15/151,650

5
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection5, 6:
A. Claims 1, 5, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in
view of the combined teachings of Goodlin,7 Takagi,8 and
Deacon.9, 10
A1. Claims 7–9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of
the combined teachings of Goodlin, Takagi, and Deacon.
B. Discussion
The Board’s findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by
a preponderance of the evidence of record.
The Examiner finds that Goodlin teaches, in Figure 6, reproduced on
the next page, a gas distributing device having first ring 602211 (FR 3, ¶ 4)
and second ring 6012 (id. at 4), which together form outer ring
showerhead 6004 (Goodlin 2 [0023]) surrounding circular inner
showerhead 6006 (which in turn is comprised of gas distribution
manifolds 6018 and 6020 (Goodlin 2 [0022]). The Examiner finds that

5 Examiner’s Answer mailed 30 April 2018 (“Ans.”).
6 Because this application was filed after 16 March 2013, the effective date
of the America Invents Act, we refer to the AIA version of the statute.
7 Brian E. Goodlin and Qidu Jiang, Showerhead for CVD depositions, U.S.
Patent Application Publication 2011/0256729 A1 (2011).
8 Toshio Takagi, Film forming apparatus, film forming method and storage
medium, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0119727 A1 (2010).
9 Thomas E. Deacon et al., Gas distribution for CVD systems, U.S. Patent
No. 5,792,269 (1998).
10 The Examiner drops a rejection based solely on Goodlin and Takagi.
(Ans. 5, last para., through 6, first full para.)
11 Goodlin identifies element 6022 as a gas distribution manifold.
(Goodlin 2 [0023].)
Appeal 2018-006871
Application 15/151,650

6
Goodlin does not teach that the outer rings are detachable from one another
or from the circular inner showerhead 6006. (Ans. 5, last para., through 6,
first full para.) The Examiner finds that “Takagi teaches a similar
detachable (see distinct cross-hatching; Figure[s] 1, 2), side tuning ring gas
distribution device (54c, Figure[s] 1–3 . . .)” (FR 5), and concludes that “it
would have been obvious . . . to make Goodlin’s components separable”
(id.).
{Goodlin Figure 6 is shown below}

{Goodlin Figure 6 show a cross section of dual split showerhead 6002
having central section 6006 (fed by manifolds 6018 and 6020), and edge ring
portion 6004 (fed by manifolds 6012 and 6022)}

Regarding the direction of the inlet holes, the Examiner finds that
neither Goodlin nor Takagi teaches or suggests different directions for the
holes of the two outer rings. (FR 5–6.) The Examiner finds that Deacon
teaches, in Figures 5 and 6 (not reproduced here), angled holes through a
faceplate. (Id. at 7.) The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious, as a matter of routine optimization of a known result-effective
variable, to provide the gas-delivery holes in the rings with different angles
Appeal 2018-006871
Application 15/151,650

7
in order to provide improved sidewall coverage [of features such as trenches
and wells on the surface of the substrate]. (Id.)
Bravo argues that Takagi teaches only, as shown in Figure 4, below,

{Takagi Figure 4 shows an exploded view of gas showerhead 51, with
peripheral region 54 detachable from central region 53}
that the ring surrounding a faceplate may be made separable from the
faceplate. Bravo urges that Takagi would have not suggested that one
surrounding ring be detachable from another surrounding ring. (Br. 11.)
Moreover, in Bravo’s view, Deacon only teaches optimizing angles through
a faceplate, and does not teach or suggest optimizing angles of holes through
rings surrounding the faceplate. (Id. at 12.)
Appeal 2018-006871
Application 15/151,650

8
The Examiner responds that Bravo is addressing the teachings of the
references individually, and not in combination. (Ans. 7, ll. 4–10, with
respect to the teachings of Goodlin and Takagi; id. at para. bridging 9–10,
regarding the teachings of Goodlin and Deacon.) These responses merely
beg the questions underlying Bravo’s arguments, namely: what teachings in
the prior art would have suggested to the routineer that the outer gas
distribution ring fed by manifold 6012, described by Goodlin, be made
detachable from the inner gas distribution ring fed by manifold 6012; and
what teachings would have suggested that the angles of the gas distribution
holes in the rings be made different from one another?
The legal conclusion of obviousness must be based on findings of fact
that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not only have been
capable of making the necessary modifications—a point we understand not
to be in dispute—but also that there were teachings or suggestions in the
prior art, not necessarily the same as led the Appellant to the claimed
invention, that would have prompted that person to make the claimed
invention. The present rejection does no more than show that certain aspects
of the prior art indicate that it would have been within the ordinary skill of
the art to make the claimed invention. This is a necessary, but not sufficient
basis, for the conclusion of obviousness. What is missing from the findings
regarding the cited prior art are any specific teachings of problems to be
solved, and ways of solving them, that would have prompted the particular
invention now claimed.12 On the present record, the only reasons for doing

12 In this regard, we are disturbed that the majority of specific teachings have
been pointed out by Bravo, in rebuttal of the general arguments made by the
Examiner. For example, the discussion of Takagi Figure 4 is due to Bravo
Appeal 2018-006871
Application 15/151,650

9
so are presented in the ′650 Specification. But hindsight is not an acceptable
basis for the legal conclusion of obviousness.
C. Conclusion
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5, 6 103 Goodlin, Takagi, Deacon 1, 5, 6
7–9 103 Goodlin, Takagi, Deacon 7–9
Overall
Outcome 1, 5–10 1, 5–10 1, 5–10
REVERSED

alone. The most specific teaching cited by the Examiner is of Deacon,
Figure 19 (showing concentric rings of holes alternating between outward-
directed holes and inward directed holes), mentioned for the first time in the
Response to Argument section of the Examiner’s Answer. (Ans. 10.) This
is too late to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, as there is no
compelling reason that Figure 19 could not have been cited and discussed
earlier. It is also too little, as it does not address the question of making the
holes in one ring point at one angle, while the holes in the other ring point at
another angle. Nor does this teaching address why the routineer would have
been motivated to make the outer rings described by Goodlin detachable
from one another, as well as from the central faceplate.