ASM America, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 30, 2020

2019006962 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 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.
14/447,383 07/30/2014 Ravinder Aggarwal ASMEX.688D1 6603
68852 7590 12/30/2020
Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear LLP
ASM IP HOLDING B.V.
2040 Main Street
14th Floor
Irvine, CA 92614
EXAMINER
KITT, STEPHEN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1717
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2020 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):
asm.pair@anaqua.com
efiling@knobbe.com
jayna.cartee@knobbe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RAVINDER AGGARWAL and
ROBERT C. HARO
____________

Appeal 2019-006962
Application 14/447,383
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, GEORGE C. BEST, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the rejection of claims 9–
18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, and 28.1 We have jurisdiction over the appeal.
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 ASM America, Inc. as the real party in
interest (Appeal Br. 3).
Appeal 2019-006962
Application 14/447,383

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is directed to semiconductor processing tools
such as a susceptor ring assembly, which surrounds a susceptor (Spec. ¶ 2).
The Specification describes that a substrate is located on a susceptor during
a semiconductor manufacturing process (id.).
Claim 9 is representative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis
added):
9. A semiconductor processing system comprising:
a reaction chamber;
a substrate support assembly located at least partially
within said reaction chamber; and
a self-centering susceptor ring assembly located within
said reaction chamber,
said self-centering susceptor ring assembly comprising:
a susceptor ring support member operatively
connected to a lower surface of said reaction chamber,
said susceptor ring support member including at least
three pins protruding away from said lower surface of
said reaction chamber; and
a susceptor ring being supportable above and on
said susceptor ring support member and configured to be
disposed about an outer edge of a susceptor, said
susceptor ring defining an aperture, with a center point
and having at least three detents formed through an
entire thickness of said susceptor ring, with one of the at
least three detents located closer to the aperture center
point than another of the at least three detents, and each
of said detents configured to receive one of said at least
three pins therethrough, wherein said pins support said
susceptor ring thereon and are slidable within said
detents as said susceptor ring and said susceptor ring
support member thermally expand and contract to
Appeal 2019-006962
Application 14/447,383

3
maintain said substrate support assembly centered within
said self-centering susceptor ring assembly.
Appeal Br. 25 (Claims App.).
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 9–18, 20, 21, 24, 25,
27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over deBoer et al. (US
4,821,674; issued April 18, 1989, “deBoer”), in view of Chen et al. (US
6,033,480; issued Mar. 7, 2000, “Chen”), Yudovsky et al. (US 6,589,352
B1; issued July 8, 2003, “Yudovsky”), and further in view of Appellant’s
Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) cited in US 2014/0338596 A12 (Non-Final Act.
2–5).
Appellant argues claims 9–18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, and 28 as a group
(see generally Appeal Br. 9–23). We select claim 9 as representative. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Accordingly, claims 10–18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, and
28 will stand or fall with our analysis of independent claim 9.
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s prior art rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). We add the following for emphasis.
With respect to claim 9, the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
regarding deBoer, Chen, Yudovsky, and AAPA are located on pages 2–4 of
the Non-Final Office Action.
The Examiner finds that deBoer’s chemical vapor deposition (“CVD”)
apparatus would have rendered obvious each component and limitation of

2 This document is the pre-grant publication of the present application on
appeal, 14/447,383.
Appeal 2019-006962
Application 14/447,383

4
the semiconductor processing system recited in independent claim 9, except
that deBoer does not disclose pins, which are slidable within detents during
thermal expansion (Non-Final Act. 2–3).
The Examiner finds Chen’s CVD apparatus includes a shadow ring,
which is supported by pins (id. at 3). Figure 3A of Chen, as reproduced
below, is a detailed view of a shadow ring configuration:

Chen’s figure 3A illustrates a CVD apparatus, including pins 32,
indentations 36, and shadow ring 24 (Chen 6:34–64).
The Examiner finds that pins 32 enter indentations 36, which are
designed with a gap to enable relative movement between the pins 32 and
indentations 36 from thermal expansion (Non-Final Act. 3). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to include Chen’s gap between deBoer’s pins
260 and detents in the bottom of ring 252 to allow the susceptor ring to
Appeal 2019-006962
Application 14/447,383

5
“automatically self-correct any misalignments caused due to thermal
expansion” (id. (citing Chen 6:34–64)).
The Examiner finds that Yudovsky discloses a CVD apparatus having
“detents formed through the full thickness that cooperate with pins for a
similar self alignment process” (Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Yudovsky 6:6–
64)). Figure 7 of Yudovsky, as reproduced below, is a side view of a
susceptor in a chamber:

Yudovsky’s figure 7 illustrates a CVD apparatus, including susceptor
11f, pins 19, alignment recess 5, alignment slot 6, and purge ring 15
(Yudovsky 6:6–35).
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use Yudovsky’s
detents, which extend through the full thickness of the ring, for at least one
of deBoer’s modified detents because “Yudovsky[] shows that they are
Appeal 2019-006962
Application 14/447,383

6
functionally equivalent detents for engaging with pins and allowing relative
movement due to thermal expansion” (Non-Final Act. 3).
The Examiner further determines that it would have been obvious to
arrange one of deBoer’s modified detents closer to the aperture center point
than the other detents because AAPA teaches that this is a well-known
arrangement, which is functionally equivalent to deBoer’s detent
arrangement (id. at 4; see AAPA Fig. 3). The Examiner concludes that the
proposed modifications of deBoer would have been simple substitutions of
functional equivalents (Non-Final Act. 3, 4 (citing MPEP § 2143)).
Appellant argues that there is no reason to modify deBoer to have pins
slidable within the detents during thermal expansion because deBoer
discloses that the ring is fixed (Appeal Br. 11–13; Reply Br. 2–3).
We are not persuaded by these arguments. As the Examiner finds,
deBoer neither discloses nor suggests that allowing pins 260 to slide within
the detents of ring 252 would have been detrimental (Ans. 7). We,
furthermore, agree with the Examiner that the term “fixed” indicates that
ring 252 does not rotate (id. (citing deBoer 13:28–33)).
Appellant argues that the applied prior art cannot render the claimed
self-centering susceptor ring subject matter obvious because Chen and
Yudovsky teach shadow and purge rings, respectively (Appeal Br. 8; Reply
Br. 3–4).
Appellant’s arguments ignore the Examiner’s findings that each of
these known rings are present in a CVD apparatus chamber around a
susceptor (Non-Final Act. 3–4; see also Chen Fig. 3A; Yudovsky Fig. 7).
Appeal 2019-006962
Application 14/447,383

7
The Examiner reasonably interprets the “susceptor ring” language recited in
claim 9 as encompassing a ring around a susceptor (Ans. 8).
We, furthermore, are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments because
they are premised on bodily incorporation and are not focused on the
Examiner’s reason for combining the cited art. It is well established that the
obviousness inquiry does not ask “whether the references could be
physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered
obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d
852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference.”). In this instance, the Examiner does not propose
modifying deBoer’s ring 252 into a shadow or a purge ring (Non-Final Act.
2–4). Rather, the Examiner cites Chen for teaching the benefits conferred
from pins that are slidable within detents during thermal expansion (id. at 3).
Furthermore, the Examiner cites Yudovsky for teaching that pin-retaining
detents may be formed through the full thickness of a ring (id.). Thus,
Appellant’s arguments have not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
reasoned conclusions that the applied prior art would have rendered claim 9
obvious.
Appellant argues that the Rule 132 Declaration of named inventor
Robert C. Haro, filed October 18, 2018 (“Haro Declaration”), avers that it
was known that unpinning the leading edge of the ring led to undesirable and
Appeal 2019-006962
Application 14/447,383

8
uncontrolled gas flow problems (see Appeal Br. 16–17; see also AAPA ¶¶ 7,
8).
We are not persuaded by the Haro Declaration because the unpinned
leading edge feature of the ring is not claimed. See In re Self, 671 F.2d
1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“Many of appellant’s arguments fail from the
outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the
claims.”). We are also not convinced by the Haro Declaration’s assertion
that it would have been considered undesirable to allow deBoer’s fixed ring
to move by unpinning the leading edge. As set forth above, deBoer neither
discloses nor suggests that allowing any one of pins 260 to slide within the
detents of ring 252 would have been detrimental (see Ans. 7).
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s “simple substitution” rationale,
based on the applied prior art, cannot render the claimed subject matter
obvious (Appeal Br. 18–20 (citing MPEP § 2143(I)(B))).
We are not persuaded by these arguments. Appellant has not
identified reversible error in the Examiner’s findings that: (i) deBoer
discloses a prior art device which differed from the claimed device by the
substitution of detent size, shape, or position, (ii) Yudovsky teaches detents
as through-holes and AAPA teaches one detent being closer to the main
central aperture than the others, and (iii) Yudovsky and AAPA both teach
that these features would have provided deBoer’s ring aligned around the
susceptor (see Ans. 8–9).
Appellant argues that Yudovsky’s purge ring does not teach or
suggest a susceptor ring with detents formed through the full thickness
(Appeal Br. 20–21). Appellant asserts that Yudovsky does not suggest using
Appeal 2019-006962
Application 14/447,383

9
a hole through the entire thickness of a shadow ring, which is supported
above and on a susceptor ring support (id. at 21–23).
We are not persuaded by these arguments.
Appellant’s arguments are directed to attacking the individual
secondary reference rather than the combined teaching of the references.
Therefore, Appellant’s criticisms of Yudovsky does not establish
nonobviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re
McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (“[T]he test for combining
references is not what the individual references themselves suggest but
rather what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest
to one of ordinary skill in the art.”).
Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that Yudovsky’s Figures 7
and 11 show a ring around a susceptor, which is provided with detents that
extend through the entire thickness of the ring (Ans. 9–10). As the
Examiner determined, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized
that Yudovsky’s alignment detents would have aligned “whether they are
through-holes provided throughout” the ring’s thickness “or . . . only go
partway through the ring” (id. at 10).
As the Examiner finds, Yudovsky teaches that: (i) recesses 5 and slots
6 can be provided on shadow ring 4 and (ii) pins 19 can be on purge ring 15
(id. (citing Yudovsky 6:24–29)). We agree with the Examiner that
Yudovsky’s teaching suggests that shadow ring 4 can also have recesses 5
and slots 6 extending through the entire shadow ring 4’s thickness (Ans. 10).
We discern no reversible error in the Examiner’s conclusion that modifying
deBoer’s detents to extend throughout the entire thickness of the ring, as
Appeal 2019-006962
Application 14/447,383

10
taught by Yudovsky, would have been an obvious substitution of functional
equivalents (id. at 11).
Therefore, Appellant’s arguments are insufficient to convince us of
reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9.
On this record, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection as to
claims 9–18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, and 28.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
9–18, 20,
21, 24, 25,
27, 28
103(a) deBoer, Chen,
Yudovsky, AAPA
9–18, 20, 21,
24, 25, 27, 28

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)(iv).
AFFIRMED