Applied Materials, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 10, 2020

14747367 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 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.
14/747,367 06/23/2015 Tien Fak TAN 21720US 9778
44257 7590 09/10/2020
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPLIED MATERIALS
24 GREENWAY PLAZA
SUITE 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
EXAMINER
BENNETT, CHARLEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1718
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/10/2020 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):
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 TIEN FAK TAN, DMITRY LUBOMIRSKY, KIRBY H. FLOYD,
SON T. NGUYEN, DAVID PALAGASHVILI, ALEXANDER TAM and
SHAOFENG CHEN
____________

Appeal 2019-003283
Application 14/747,367
Technology Center 1700
___________

Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5–8, 13, 14, and 21–24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over at least the combined prior art of
Sajoto (US 6,035,101 issued Mar. 7, 2000), Dawson (US 2004/0187787 A1
published Sep. 30, 2004), Moschini (US 6,054,688 issued Apr. 25, 2000),

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, Inc. (Appeal Br. 3).
Appeal 2019-003283
Application 14/747,367

2
and Johnsgard (US 6,902,622 B2 published Jun. 7, 2005).2 We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added
to highlight key limitation in dispute):

1. A pedestal heater for a processing chamber, comprising:

a temperature-controlled plate having a first surface and a
second surface opposing the first surface, comprising:
a first zone comprising a first set of heating
elements; and
a second zone comprising a second set of heating
elements, the second zone surrounding the first zone;
a substrate receiving plate having a first surface and a
second surface opposing the first surface, wherein the
second surface of the substrate receiving plate is coupled
to the first surface of the temperature-controlled plate;

a continuous annular thermal choke disposed between
the first zone and the second zone, wherein the thermal choke is
a cut-out formed through the entire thickness of the
temperature-controlled plate and into a thickness of the
substrate receiving plate so that a portion of the substrate
receiving plate disposed above the second zone is connected to
a portion of the substrate receiving plate disposed above the
first zone by a thin bridge;

2 The Examiner applied additional references to various claims as listed in
the summary table at the end of this decision. Discussion of these
references, however, is not needed for disposition of this appeal.
Appeal 2019-003283
Application 14/747,367

3
a bore formed through the thin bridge, wherein the bore
opens into the cut-out;
and
a lift pin sized to pass through the bore in the thin bridge.

(Claims App. Appeal Br. 20–21).

Independent claims 7 and 21 also recite pedestal heaters, similar to
that of claim 1, although they do not explicitly recite “a continuous annular
thermal choke” which is the focus of Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br.
12–19). Claim 7 recites “a cut-out” (Appeal Br. 22) and claim 23 recites “an
annular cut-out” (Appeal Br. 24).

ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential),
cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections . . . .”). After considering the
evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are
not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action
and the Answer. We add the following for emphasis.
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek
out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
Appeal 2019-003283
Application 14/747,367

4
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see also In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1264–65 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (explaining that a reference stands for all of the
specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in
the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom).
The Examiner finds that Sajoto discloses many of the claim
limitations, but relies upon Dawson to exemplify the obviousness of making
the annular choke/cut out 407 of Sajoto continuous, and relies upon
Moschini to exemplify a continuous annular choke that forms a thin bridge,
and Johnsgard as evidence that one of ordinary skill would have been
motivated to plug the holes for lift pins in the thin bridge of a plate in order
to reduce heat loss from the wafer and have a more uniform thermal profile
(Final Action 4–7).
Appellant contends that “the thermal break of Sajoto cannot be
modified with the continuous break of Dawson” (Appeal Br. 13) because the
lift pin hole sleeves therein would prevent such a continuous annular choke
and such a modification would render Sajoto “unsuited for its intended
purpose” (Appeal Br. 14, repeated at Appeal Br. 16). Appellant also
contends that the lift pin sleeves are required by Sajoto in order to seal the
inner core inside the shell at the lift pin hole (Appeal Br. 13). This argument
is reiterated in the Reply Brief.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error as they
fail to consider the applied prior art as a whole and the inferences that one of
ordinary skill would have made. It has been established that “[t]he test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather,
Appeal 2019-003283
Application 14/747,367

5
the test is what the combined teachings of [those] references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981); see also In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973)
(“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to
combine their specific structures.”).
As the Examiner points out, Dawson exemplifies that thermal breaks
may have various configurations in a substrate support and that preferably an
annular thermal break may be continuous in a pedestal heater substrate
support similar to that of Sajoto (as well as similar to Appellant’s claimed
pedestal heater) (e.g., Ans. 24, 25). Appellant has not shown reversible error
in the Examiner’s determination that one of ordinary skill in the art, using no
more than ordinary creativity, would have modified, e.g., at least one of the
inner plates depicted in Sajoto’s Fig. 5 to have a “continuous” annular choke
as recited in claim 1. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used
to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the
technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her
skill.”). An artisan of ordinary skill would have weighed the advantages and
disadvantages of these two known thermal break configurations (e.g.,
discontinuous annular break of Sajoto versus the continuous annular break
of Dawson). “The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of
another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the
disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the
benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.”
Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n. 8 (Fed. Cir.
2000).
Appeal 2019-003283
Application 14/747,367

6
Appellant has also not directed us to any explicit definition of a
continuous annular choke that would preclude the presence of lift pin
sleeves, especially in light of the continuous annular break depicted in the
applied prior art and in Appellant’s Specification which are at least
interrupted by the lift pins when placed into their respective lift pin hole.
It is again noted that neither of independent claims 7 or 23 recite that
the “cut-out” recited therein is continuous. Limitations not appearing in the
claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344,
1348 (CCPA 1982).
Appellant only presents arguments directed to claim 1. Accordingly
all the claims stand or fall with claim 1, including those claims separately
rejected.
Accordingly, we sustain the § 103 rejections of all of the claims on
appeal for the reasons given above and presented by the Examiner.

CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.

Appeal 2019-003283
Application 14/747,367

7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5, 6,
21, 23 103
Sajoto, Dawson,
Moschini,
Johnsgard
1, 2, 5, 6, 21
7, 8, 14,
22, 24 103
Sajoto, Dawson,
Moschini,
Johnsgard,
Heimanson
7, 8, 14, 22
13 103
Sajoto, Dawson,
Moschini,
Johnsgard,
Heimanson,
Ootsuka
13

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).

AFFIRMED