2019005609 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2020)

Applied Materials, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 6, 2020

2019005609 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 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. 14/606,367 01/27/2015 Anantha K. Subramani 017359USA 6850 67251 7590 08/06/2020 SERVILLA WHITNEY LLC/AMT 33 WOOD AVE SOUTH SUITE 830 ISELIN, NJ 08830 EXAMINER BERMAN, JASON ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1794 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/06/2020 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): docket@dsiplaw.com hservilla@dsiplaw.com lmurphy@dsiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANANTHA K. SUBRAMANI, DEEPAK JADHAV, ASHISH GOEL, HANBING WU, PRASHANTH KOTHNUR, and CHI HONG CHING Appeal 2019-005609 Application 14/606,367 Technology Center 1700 Before BRIAN D. RANGE, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. REN, 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 to reject claims 1–5, 7, and 15–20. See Final Act. 3–7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 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 2019-005609 Application 14/606,367 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER “The present invention relates generally to a deposition system, and more particularly to a system for a deposition system with multi-cathode.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1 and 15, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of operation of a chamber comprising: adjusting a cathode; rotating a rotating shield below the cathode to expose the cathode through a shroud below the cathode and through a shield hole of the rotating shield; and rotating a rotating pedestal to produce a material to form a carrier over the rotating pedestal, wherein the material having a non-uniformity constraint of less than 1% of a thickness of the material and the cathode having an angle between a plane of the cathode and a plane of the carrier, the angle in a range of 30 degrees to 50 degrees. 15. A method of forming a carrier comprising: depositing a layer comprising a material from a cathode having a plane onto a rotating a rotating pedestal to form the carrier having a plane over the rotating pedestal, the cathode having an angle between the plane of the cathode and the plane of the carrier, the angle in a range of 30 degrees to 50 degrees such that the material has a non-uniformity constraint of less than 1% of a thickness of the material. Claims Appendix (Appeal Br. 14–15). Appeal 2019-005609 Application 14/606,367 3 REFERENCES The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner are: Name Reference Date Ghanbari US 5,455,197 Oct. 3, 1995 Drewes US 2004/0195639 A1 Oct. 7, 2004 Takahashi US 2007/0080059 A1 Apr. 12, 2007 Kikuchi US 2009/0294279 A1 Dec. 3, 2009 Ohishi US 2011/0147199 A1 June 23, 2011 REJECTIONS Claims 15–18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being anticipated by Kikuchi in view of Takahashi. Ans. 3; see Appeal Br. 6, n. 2. Claims 1, 3–5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Ohishi and Takahashi. Final Act. 4. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Ohishi, Takahashi, and Ghanbari. Final Act. 6. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Takahashi and Drewes. Final Act. 7. OPINION Claim 152 In rejecting claim 15, the Examiner finds that Kikuchi teaches a method of angled deposition resulting in a thickness variation of less than 1% whereas Takahashi teaches a specific angle of between 15 degrees and 2 Appellant does not separately argue for the rejection of claims 3–5, and 7. See Appeal Br. 10–12. These claims stand or fall with claim 1. See id.; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2019-005609 Application 14/606,367 4 45 degrees to increase thickness uniformity. Final Act. 3 (citing various portions of the references). Appellant acknowledges that Takahashi teaches a method in which “each of the sputtering cathodes is that [sic.] a center axis of the target is slanted at an angle of 45 . . . [and] it is more preferred that the angle is within 15 to 45.” Takahashi ¶ 12 (cited in Appeal Br. 8). Appellant, however, argues that such teaching is not about thickness uniformity or “how changing the angle has an impact on thickness uniformity.” Appeal Br. 8. We are not persuaded for at least two reasons. First, Appellant does not argue that any of the recited steps of claim 15 is absent in the prior art. To the extent that the result of less than 1% of thickness variation is beneficial, “[i]t is a general rule that merely discovering and claiming a new benefit of an old process cannot render the process again patentable.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Second, Appellant’s argument is not supported by Takahashi’s teaching as a whole. As the Examiner points out, the stated objective of Takahashi is to provide “a sputtering device having new constitution for increasing distribution of the film thickness on the substrate.” Ans. 5 (quoting Takahashi ¶ 6). The teaching of the specific angle range is one of the ways to achieve such an objective. Id. 5–6 (citing Takahashi ¶¶ 6, 7, 12, 14). Appellant also argues that Kikuchi teaches away from the recited angle range because “Kikuchi at paragraphs [0003] and [0008] that with respect to Patent Document 1, when the angle is between 15 degrees and 45 degrees, ‘it is difficult to obtain a film thickness having a deviation less than 1 %.’” Appeal Br. 7. Appeal 2019-005609 Application 14/606,367 5 First and foremost, Appellant’s argument that Kikuchi teaches away from an angle of between 15 degrees and 45 degrees is inconsistent with Kikuchi’s undisputed teaching of a narrower range of between 20 degrees and 24 degrees. In other words, Appellant does not explain why Kikuchi would have taught the narrower range which is encompassed by the range of 15 and 45 degrees had Kikuchi taught away from the broader range. Moreover, the Examiner finds that Kikuchi’s teaching of a narrower angle range is based on the specific configurations/arrangements of the materials and apparatus rather than an exclusion of all other angles outside of that range. Final Act. 8. Appellant does not respond to, and therefore does not identify error in, this finding. Appeal Br. 7–9. As we note supra, Appellant does not identify any step recited in process claim 15 that is absent in the prior art. “It is a general rule that merely discovering and claiming a new benefit of an old process cannot render the process again patentable.” Woodruff, 919 F.2d at 1578. All recited steps have been taught in the prior art and Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s rationale to combine the references. Compare Appeal Br. 7–9, with Final Act. 3 (citing Takahashi Fig. 3 and ¶ 12 as support for the rationale to combine the references). The rejection is sustained. Claim 13 Appellant’s arguments with regard to claim 1 mirror those raised for claim 15. Compare Appeal Br. 7–9, with id. at 10–12. We sustain the rejection of claim 1 based on the reason provided supra. 3 Appellant does not separately argue for the rejection of claims 16–18 and 20. See Appeal Br. 7–9. These claims stand or fall with claim 15. See id.; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2019-005609 Application 14/606,367 6 Claims 2 & 19 Appellant does not raise separate arguments for claims 2 and 19. Appeal Br. 12. These claims stand or fall with claim 1 and claim 15 from which they depend, respectively. The rejections of claims 2 and 19 are sustained. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. More specifically, DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 15–18, 20 103 Kikuchi, Takahashi 15–18, 20 1, 3–5, 7 103 Kikuchi, Takahashi, Ohishi 1, 3–5, 7 2 103 Kikuchi, Ohishi, Takahashi, Ghanbari 2 19 103 Kikuchi, Takahashi, Drewes 19 Overall Outcome: 1–5, 7, 15– 20 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED