Ex Parte Choi

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 31, 2012

11139349 (B.P.A.I. May. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/139,349 05/27/2005 Soo Young Choi AMAT/9767/DISPLAY/AKT/RKK 2894
44257 7590 06/01/2012
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX
3040 POST OAK BOULEVARD, SUITE 1500
HOUSTON, TX 77056
EXAMINER
CHEN, KEATH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte SOO YOUNG CHOI
__________

Appeal 2010-006236
Application 11/139,349
Technology Center 1700
___________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CHARLES F. WARREN, and
PETER F. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006236
Application 11/139,349

2

A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from an Examiner’s final
rejection of claim 7, the sole pending claim. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The subject matter on appeal is directed to a chemical vapor deposition
system. Claim 7 reads as follows:
7. A chemical vapor deposition system for processing flat panel
display substrates, comprising:
a remote plasma source having at least two gas sources
connected thereto;
a chemical vapor deposition chamber connected to the remote
plasma source, the chemical vapor deposition chamber comprising:
a chamber body;
a substrate support enclosed within the chamber body;
a pumping plenum; and
a gas distribution assembly; and
a flow restrictor adapted to provide a pressure differential
between the remote plasma source and the chemical vapor deposition
chamber, wherein the chamber body defines a first inlet configured to
provide reactive species from the remote plasma source into a
processing region of the chemical vapor deposition chamber via the
gas distribution assembly, and the chamber body defines a second
inlet located below the pumping plenum in a sidewall of the chamber
body between the gas distribution assembly and the substrate support
and configured to provide reactive species into the processing region
of the chemical vapor deposition chamber while bypassing the gas
distribution assembly.
Appeal 2010-006236
Application 11/139,349

3

Br., Claims Appendix (emphasis added).1
The sole rejection on appeal is the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Beppu2 and Kao,3 further in view
of Davis.4
B. DISCUSSION
The Examiner sets forth two alternative positions for combining the
teachings of Beppu and Kao. See Ans. 5 (rearranging the exhaust plenum of
Beppu in view of the teachings of Kao); Ans. 6-7 (adding a second inlet below the
exhaust plenum of Kao and adding multiple gas sources and remote plasma
generators in view of the teachings of Beppu).5
Significantly, the Appellant does not direct us to any error in the Examiner’s
second position (i.e., adding a second inlet below the exhaust plenum of Kao to
introduce remotely generated reactive radicals in view of the teachings of Beppu).
See Ans. 8 (“Appellant is silent on the second way of combination.”); see also
Kao, col. 17, ll. 15-36 (disclosing that plasma may be generated remotely).
The Examiner finds that neither Beppu nor Kao discloses a flow restrictor as
recited in claim 7. However, under both positions, the Examiner adds a valve or
flow restrictor (45b in Davis) at the second inlet of Beppu (72) (i.e., between the
remote plasma source (70) and the deposition chamber) “for improved selectivity
in controlling the remote plasma source.” Ans. 5, 7.

1 Appeal Brief dated November 12, 2009.
2 JP 2004-039740 published February 5, 2004. We have relied on the machine
translation made of record on April 7, 2008, as evidence of the Beppu disclosure.
3 US 6,125,859 issued October 3, 2000.
4 US 2002/0144706 A1 published October 10, 2002.
5 Examiner’s Answer dated January 4, 2010.
Appeal 2010-006236
Application 11/139,349

4

The Appellant argues “[t]here is no motivation to add a flow restrictor
downstream of either remote plasma generator in Beppu, the flow being adequately
controlled by flow restrictors upstream of the two remote plasma sources.” Br. 11.
The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. A time lag
results when the upstream flow restrictor of Beppu is used to adjust the flow of gas
from the remote plasma source (70) to the reaction chamber. Thus, the upstream
flow restrictor of Beppu is an imprecise method for controlling the amount of gas
entering the reaction chamber from the remote plasma source (70). A more precise
method for controlling the amount of gas introduced into the reaction chamber is to
position a flow restrictor between the remote plasma source (70) and the reaction
chamber (i.e., downstream of the remote plasma source (70)) as suggested by
Davis. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to add a flow restrictor at the second inlet of Beppu
“for improved selectivity in controlling the remote plasma source.” See Ans. 5, 7.
For the reasons set forth above, the § 103(a) rejection of claim 7 is affirmed.
C. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

kmm