Applied Materials, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 2, 2020

2019005386 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 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.
15/429,038 02/09/2017 Tasnuva TABASSUM 024783USA 8657
44257 7590 09/02/2020
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPLIED MATERIALS
24 GREENWAY PLAZA
SUITE 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
EXAMINER
XU, XIAOYUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1797
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2020 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 TASNUVA TABASSUM, MATS LARSSON,
and KEVIN A. PAPKE
Appeal 2019-005386
Application 15/429,038
Technology Center 1700
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, DONNA M. PRAISS and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision2 to reject claims 1, 2, 4–10, 12–14, and 21–24. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Applied
Materials, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
2 We use the Answer mailed on May 22, 2019 for reference to the rejections
on appeal.
Appeal 2019-005386
Application 15/429,038

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal
and is set forth below:
1. A test station for testing a coating comprising:
a hollow tube having an open bottom end configured for
sealingly engaging a coating layer of a semiconductor chamber
component;
a sensor coupled to a top end of the hollow tube, the
sensor configured to detect the presence of a gaseous byproduct
of a reaction between a reagent disposed in the hollow tube and
a base layer of the semiconductor chamber component disposed
under the coating layer;
a sensor holder isolating and protecting the sensor
coupled to the top end of the hollow tube from the reagent
disposed in the hollow tube and configured to engage the
sensor with the top end of the hollow tube; and
a processing system communicatively coupled to the
sensor, the processing system configured to determine exposure
of the base layer through the coating in response to information
about the presence of the gaseous byproduct obtained by the
sensor.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Cormier et al.
(“Cormier”)
US 8,854,451 B2 Oct. 7, 2014
Detcon Inc., Model DM-702-H2 Hydrogen Sensor (1%),
https://web.archive.org/web/20110523200041/http://www.detcon.com/1-
documents/data_sheets/1-sensors/Model%20700/DM-
700/Hydrogen%20DM-702-H2%201%20Percent.pdf (“Detcon”)

Appeal 2019-005386
Application 15/429,038

3
REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 4–10, 12–14, and 21–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Cormier in view of Detcon.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, 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.”). Upon review of the
evidence and each of the respective positions set forth in the record, we find
that the preponderance of evidence of record supports Appellant’s position.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection on appeal essentially for
the reasons set forth in the record by Appellant, and add the following for
emphasis.
Features of Appellant’s claim 1 are depicted in Appellant’s Figure 2,
below (with annotations).

Appeal 2019-005386
Application 15/429,038

4

Figure 2 is a schematic view of Appellant’s claimed test station for
testing a defective coating over the semiconductor chamber component.

We refer to the Examiner’s statement of the rejection as set forth on
pages 3–7 of the Answer. Therein, the Examiner relies upon the primary
reference of Cormier for certain teachings as discussed therein. Ans. 3–4.
The Examiner recognizes that Cormier does not teach that the sensor is
coupled to the top end of the tube configured to detect the presence of a
gaseous byproduct of the reaction, and a sensor holder configured to engage
the sensor with the top end of the hollow tube, and isolating and protecting
the sensor from the reagent disposed in the hollow tube. Ans. 3–4. The
Examiner relies upon Detcon and states:
Appeal 2019-005386
Application 15/429,038

5
The underlying objective technical problem may therefore be seen in
providing an alternative sensor for detecting the gaseous byproduct of
the reaction. Detcon discloses a simple-to-use hydrogen gas sensor,
suitable for sensing hydrogen concentrations in the air over the range
of 0-1% by volume and generate an analog output signal (page 1, par
1), and a sensor holder (a stainless steel housing) isolating and
protecting the sensor from the corrosion (page 1, par 1). Detcon
teaches that “The Model 700’s rugged framework includes an
intrinsically safe electro-polished 316 stainless steel housing with
fully encapsulated electronics and dual layer surge protection.
This innovative design virtually eliminates sensor failure due to water
ingress, corrosion, vibration, and transient spikes.” (page 1, par 1).
Since the gaseous byproduct (hydrogen bubbles) in Cormier device
moves upward, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to use the hydrogen sensor of Detcon configured to generate
an analog output signal and to couple the sensor to the top end of the
tube and isolate and protect the sensor from the reagent disposed in
the hollow tube, in order to monitor the hydrogen bubble going up. A
person skilled in the art would have been motivated to do so, because
Detcon teaches that the simple-to-use hydrogen sensor has a
high sensitivity (0-1%).

Appellant argues that the Examiner misapplied Cormier’s silence of
the claimed “sensor holder isolating and protecting the sensor coupled to the
top end of the hollow tube from the reagent disposed in the hollow tube and
configured to engage the sensor with the top end of the hollow tube” as
being “[t]he underlying objective technical problem”. Reply Br. 2. We
agree. It appears, rather, that this rationale used in the rejection is gleaned
from Appellant’s own disclosure. We note that it is “important to identify a
reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant
field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.”
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). But the reason
cannot be based upon hindsight. The fact finder must be aware “of the
Appeal 2019-005386
Application 15/429,038

6
distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant
upon ex post reasoning.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at
421(citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 36 (1966) (warning
against a “temptation to read into the prior art the teachings of the invention
in issue”)). In the instant case, we agree that Cormier’s silence of the
claimed “sensor holder isolating and protecting the sensor coupled to the top
end of the hollow tube from the reagent disposed in the hollow tube and
configured to engage the sensor with the top end of the hollow tube” cannot
reasonably be viewed as a recognition of a technical problem to be solved.
Furthermore, Appellant states that Detcon discloses a Model 700
sensor designed to detect and monitor hydrogen in air. Appellant reproduces
an exploded view of the Model 700 sensor, in an attached datasheet of the
Detcon Model Series 700, on page 9 of the Appeal Brief. Appellant states
that the view shows a sensor housing connected to the junction box, and a
lower housing connected to the splashguard. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant states
that the splashguard of Detcon is not taught or suggested as being suitable or
even capable of coupling to a top end of a hollow tube. Appellant states that
Detcon does not teach or suggest a sensor holder isolating and protecting the
sensor coupled to the top end of the hollow tube from the reagent disposed
in the hollow tube and configured to engage the sensor with the top end of
the hollow tube. In response, the Examiner states that “[h]ow the sensor
holder is mounted to the top end of the hollow tube is within the capability
of [one of ] ordinary skill in the art”. Ans. 8. However, we agree with
Appellant that this statement is insufficiently supported by facts in the record
Appeal 2019-005386
Application 15/429,038

7
and therefore fails to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Reply Br.
5.
We thus reverse the rejection.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Reversed Affirmed
1, 2, 4–10,
12–14, 21–
24
103 1, 2, 4–10,
12–14, 21–
24

REVERSED