Ex Parte Benjamin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 25, 2013

11001219 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________________

Ex parte NEIL BENJAMIN and ROBERT STEGER
____________________

Appeal 2012-010297
Application 11/001,219
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, JOHN C. KERINS, and
KEN B. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-010297
Application 11/001,219

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Neil Benjamin and Robert Steger (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 50-52, 59-62, 76, and
77. The Examiner withdrew claims 53-58 from consideration. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). This is the second appeal in the present
application. See Ex parte Benjamin, No. 2009-008656 (BPAI Jan. 27,
2011), http://efoia.uspto.gov/Foia/ReterivePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=
fd2009008656-01-25-2011-1.
We REVERSE.
The Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 50, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
50. A workpiece chuck assembly for a plasma processor, the
chuck comprising:
a temperature-controlled base configurable to have a
temperature below a desired processing temperature of a
workpiece;
a layer of thermal insulation disposed over the base; and
a wafer support element disposed over the base, the
wafer support element including at least an inner spiral portion
and an outer spiral portion, wherein the inner spiral portion is
configured to affect the temperature of an inner disk
temperature zone of a workpiece, and the outer spiral portion is
configured to affect the temperature of an outer annular
temperature zone of the workpiece and wherein the inner spiral
portion and the outer spiral portion function as electrodes
allowing the wafer support element to function as either a
mono-polar electrostatic chuck or a bi-polar electrostatic chuck.
Evidence
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Appeal 2012-010297
Application 11/001,219

3
Young
Stevko
Carman
Schaper
Kawanabe
Babikian
US 2,152,126
US 3,634,740
US 5,294,778
US 5,802,856
US 6,133,557
US 6,472,643 B1
Mar. 28, 1939
Jan. 11, 1972
Mar. 15, 1994
Sep. 8, 1998
Oct. 17, 2000
Oct. 29, 2002
Rejection
Appellants request our review of the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 50-52, 59-62, 76 and 77 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Babikian, Carman or Schaper, Kawanabe, Young, and Stevko.
OPINION
Appellants’ independent claim 50 is directed to a workpiece chuck
having inner and outer spiral elements configured to affect the temperature
of inner and outer zones of a workpiece, respectively, and further configured
to function as electrodes allowing the wafer support element to function as a
mono-polar or bi-polar electrostatic chuck. Claim 77 is directed to a
workpiece chuck assembly having inner and outer spiral elements
configured to affect the temperature of inner and outer zones of a workpiece
and further configured to electrostatically clamp the workpiece to the wafer
support element upon being energized. Claim 59 is directed to a method of
controlling spatial temperature across a workpiece comprising steps of
holding the workpiece against a top surface of a wafer support element
having inner and outer spiral elements that function as electrodes allowing
the wafer support element to function as a mono-polar or bi-polar
electrostatic chuck and controlling the inner and outer spiral elements to
affect the temperature of inner and outer zones of the workpiece.
The Examiner’s rejection rests in part on the determination that it
would have been obvious, in view of the teachings of Kawanabe and
Appeal 2012-010297
Application 11/001,219

4
Carman or Schaper, to adapt Babikian’s apparatus with inner and outer
spiral portions to affect the temperature of associated portions of the wafer
support element to independently heat corresponding portions of the
workpiece, wherein the inner and outer spiral portions “can be used as
electrodes for the electrostatic chucks as taught by Kawanabe.” Ans. 6.
The Examiner finds that Kawanabe shows the same conductive
element arrangements used for heating, electrostatic adhesion, and plasma
generation, wherein each of the conductive elements can be made of
substantially the same material and composition. Ans. 7-8.
The Examiner additionally finds that Stevko teaches electrically
conductive elements used as electrodes connected by a voltage potential
applied between the electrodes to create an electrostatic field for the
electrostatic holding or chucking force and Young teaches electrically
conductive elements used as heat generating resistance elements with
electrical power connections made at the terminals of each conductive
element to cause electrical current flow therein. Ans. 6. Thus, the Examiner
finds that Stevko and Young together evidence that the same electrical
conductor configuration can be used as an electrostatic chuck or as an
electrical heater, depending upon how the voltage potential is applied, as
illustrated by Kawanabe. Id.
In other words, according to the Examiner, “one of ordinary skill in
the art would predictably determine that the conductive elements as shown
in each arrangements [sic] allow for performing different heating,
electrostatic function, or plasma generating function based on how a voltage
power is connected thereto.” Ans. 8. Consequently, the Examiner
concludes that “one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adapt
Appeal 2012-010297
Application 11/001,219

5
Babikian, as modified by Carman or Schaper, . . . to not only use a
conductive heating element as a heating resistor/element but also as an
electrostatic electrode, based on how voltage power is connected thereto, to
predictably perform the known applications in the art.” Id.
Appellants argue that the applied prior art does not teach or suggest
using the same electrode for heating and electrostatic clamping. App. Br.
11.
While Kawanabe discloses compositions that can be used both as a
heating resistor and as an electrostatic adhesion electrode (col. 5, ll. 55-57;
col. 6, ll. 1-5), the Examiner has not articulated an apparent reason why a
person having ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to use the
spiral heating elements of the modified Babikian apparatus for both
functions. As noted by Appellants (App. Br. 11, 12), Schaper and
Kawanabe both teach wafer processing equipment incorporating heating
elements and electrostatic clamping elements. See Schaper, col. 11, ll. 30-
34; col. 12, ll. 18-21; Kawanabe, col. 9, l. 13; col. 10, ll. 1-2. However, both
Schaper and Kawanabe teach heating elements which are distinct from the
electrostatic clamping elements. Kawanabe, in fact, explicitly points out that
a single electrode may be used as the electrostatic adhesion electrode and the
plasma generation electrode (col. 9, ll. 61-64), but separately discusses a
heating resistor as a distinct element (col. 10, ll. 1-2).
Moreover, Appellants argue that the Examiner “does not explain how
Babikian’s thermal diffuser 230 would enable an electrostatic chucking
electrode in thermal source 240 to operate to electrostatically clamp wafer
200” (App.Br. 11), and the Examiner does not respond to that argument.
Stevko describes a dielectric top coating for the electrostatic hold down
Appeal 2012-010297
Application 11/001,219

6
device (col. 2, ll. 62-64; col. 4, ll. 13-17). Kawanabe discloses a ceramic
base body for its electrostatic chuck (col. 1, ll. 38-43; col. 4, ll. 3-5). Young
and Babikian, on the other hand, disclose a high conductivity material such
as copper on the upper surfaces of their heating devices. Young, p. 1, col. 2,
ll. 51-54 (discussing plate or disc 21); Babikian, col. 2, ll. 58, 61-63
(discussing thermal diffuser 230). These structural distinctions between the
top surface of the body in which the electrostatic chucking electrodes are
disposed and the top surface of the body in which the heating elements are
disposed raise a legitimate question as to whether an electrode in Babikian’s
thermal source 240 would be capable of functioning as an electrostatic
chucking electrode within Babikian’s assembly allowing the assembly to
function as an electrostatic chuck.
For the above reasons, the Examiner fails to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness of the subject matter of claims 50 and 77, particularly a
workpiece chuck having inner and outer spiral electrodes that are configured
to affect workpiece temperature and also configured to function as
electrodes for functioning as an electrostatic chuck. The Examiner also fails
to establish a prima face case of obviousness of the subject matter of claim
59, particularly a method wherein the spiral elements affect the temperature
of a workpiece and further function as electrodes allowing the wafer support
to function as an electrostatic chuck.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 50-
52, 59-62, 76 and 77 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Babikian, Carman or Schaper, Kawanabe, Young, and Stevko.
Appeal 2012-010297
Application 11/001,219

7
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 50-52, 59-62, 76, and 77 is
reversed.
REVERSED

peb