Ex Parte Ganguly et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 23, 2018

12720926 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/720,926 03/10/2010 Udayan Ganguly
67251 7590 10/25/2018
SER VILLA WHITNEY LLC/ AMT
33 WOOD A VE SOUTH
SUITE 830
!SELIN, NJ 08830
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
013796USAP3 1093
EXAMINER
LUND, JEFFRIE ROBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/25/2018 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
jescobar@dsiplaw.com
lmurphy@dsiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
ExparteUDAYANGANGULY, YOSHITAKA YOKOTA,
CHRISTOPHER S. OLSEN, MATTHEW D. SCOTNEY-CASTLE,
VICKY NGUYEN, SWAMINATHAN SRINIVASAN, WEI LIU,
JOHANES F. SWENBERG, JOSE A. MARIN, AIJIT BALAKRISHNA,
JACOB NEWMAN, and STEPHEN C. HICKERSON
Appeal2017-010744
Application 12/720,926
Technology Center 1700
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision finally rejecting claims 1, 3-7, and 18. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed March 10, 2010 ("Spec."); Final Office Action dated September 6,
2016 ("Final Act."); Appeal Brief filed March 6, 2017 ("Appeal Br.");
Examiner's Answer dated June 15, 2017 ("Ans."); and Reply Brief filed
August 15, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2 Appellants identify Applied Materials, Inc., as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-010744
Application 12/720,926
We AFFIRM.
The invention relates to an apparatus for manufacturing
semiconductor devices suitable for narrow pitch3 applications. Spec. ,r 5.
When manufacture of a semiconductor device requires multiple iterations of
cyclic oxidation and etching processes, separate chambers are often used for
oxidation and etching due to the different temperature requirements. Id.
,r 34. A drawback of using separate chambers is that interchamber transfer
time reduces throughput. Id. According to the inventors, although it was
known that delay caused by interchamber transfer time could be eliminated
through the use of a single chamber for oxidation and etching processes, it
was thought that overall processing time would not improve because
chambers that enabled rapid heating and cooling of the semiconductor
substrate were not available. Id. The inventors are said to have invented an
apparatus that provides rapid heating and cooling of semiconductor
substrates, thereby enabling performance of cyclic oxidation and etching
processes in a single chamber at higher throughput than if the processes
were performed in separate chambers. Id. Embodiments of the inventive
apparatus include a process chamber having the following: a substrate
support with a temperature control system coupled thereto to control the
temperature of the substrate support proximate a first temperature; a gas
source to provide an oxygen-containing gas, an inert gas, and an etching gas;
a plasma source coupled to the process chamber to provide energy to gases
3 The term "pitch," as used in the Specification, means "a measure between
the parallel structures or the adjacent structures of the semiconductor
device." Spec. ,r 33. "[N]arrow pitch applications include half-pitches of 32
nm or less (e.g., device nodes of 32 nm or less)." Id.
2
Appeal2017-010744
Application 12/720,926
provided by the gas source to form at least one of an oxidizing plasma or an
etching plasma; and a heat source coupled to the process chamber to provide
energy to the substrate to selectively raise the temperature of the substrate to
a second temperature greater than the first temperature. Id. ,r 6. When using
the inventive apparatus, a complete process sequence of oxidation (and/or
nitridation) and etching steps can be completed in less than about three
minutes. Id. ,r 7.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below.
1. An apparatus for performing a cyclical oxidation
and etching process on a material layer, comprising:
a processing chamber having a plurality of walls defining
a processing region within the processing chamber including a
substrate support to hold a substrate having a material layer
within the processing region;
an oxygen-containing gas supply inlet, an inert gas
supply inlet and an etching gas supply inlet in fluid
communication with the processing chamber to deliver an
oxygen-containing gas, an inert gas and an etching gas into the
process chamber;
a plasma source to form a plasma in a plasma generation
region inside the chamber, the plasma source in communication
with at least one of the oxygen-containing gas or etching gas to
energize the gas to form at least one of an oxygen plasma or an
etching plasma to contact the material layer;
a heating system to heat the substrate within the chamber
to a first temperature greater than about 100° C for performing
at least a portion of an oxidation process;
a cooling system to cool the substrate within the chamber
to a second temperature below about 50° C to perform at least a
portion of the etch process; and
a control system configured to perform a cyclical
oxidation and etching process by cycling the substrate within
the chamber between the first temperature and the second
3
Appeal2017-010744
Application 12/720,926
temperature, while at the first temperature allowing the
oxidizing gas into the processing chamber, and while at the
second temperature allowing the etching gas into the processing
chamber to perform a cyclical oxidation and etching process,
wherein the control system, the heating system and the
cooling system cycle between the first temperature and the
second temperature within a time period of less than about three
minutes, and
wherein the apparatus shapes a material layer on the
substrate, the material layer having a final shape with a first
width proximate a base of the final shape that is substantially
equivalent to a second width proximate a top of the final shape,
wherein the first and second width of the shape is in the range
of about 1 to about 30 nanometers.
Appeal Br. 29 (Claims Appendix).
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability.
Ouchi
Kitayama
Brillhart
Sugimoto
Mariner
US 2003/0194874 Al
US 2004/0097088 Al
US 2007 /0097580 Al
US 2007/0163995 Al
US 2008/006667 6 Al
Oct. 16, 2003
May 20, 2004
May 3, 2007
July 19, 2007
Mar. 20, 2008
The Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a):
1. claims 1, 3, 4, and 18 over Brillhart, Ouchi, and Sugimoto;
2. claims 5-7 over Brillhart, Ouchi, Sugimoto, and Mariner;
3. claims 1, 3, and 18 over Kitayama, Ouchi, and Sugimoto;
4. claim 4 over Kitayama, Ouchi, Sugimoto, and Brillhart; and
5. claims 5-7 over Kitayama, Ouchi, Sugimoto, Brillhart, and
Mariner.
4
Appeal2017-010744
Application 12/720,926
In support of their arguments, Appellants rely on the Declaration
under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 of Dr. Christopher S. Olsen (Appeal Br. 31-34
(Evidence Appendix)). See, e.g., Appeal Br. 15, 22. We have reviewed the
Olsen Declaration and agree with the Examiner that it does not provide
persuasive evidence of nonobviousness for the reasons explained in the
Answer. See Ans. 18, 24. We note that Mr. Olsen is a named inventor in
the present application and was an employee of the assignee, Applied
Materials, at the time of his declaration. Olsen Declaration ,r,r 4, 7. The
Olsen Declaration does not address the present grounds of rejection, but
addresses a rejection over Brillhart in view ofNagaiwa. See id. ,r 9. For
these additional reasons, the Olsen Declaration lacks persuasive merit. See
Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (stating that it is
"within the discretion of the trier of fact to give each item of evidence such
weight as it feels appropriate").
Rejections based on Brillhart (Grounds 1 and 2)
The Examiner finds Brillhart discloses an apparatus comprising the
majority of features recited in claims 1, 3-7, and 18 (see generally Final Act.
3-8), including control, heating, and cooling systems configured to cycle
between a first temperature greater than 100 °C and a second temperature
less than 50 °C "instantaneously (from a few seconds to less than a second)
which is within a time period of less than about three minutes" (id. at 3--4
(citing Brillhart ,r,r 68-75)). The Examiner finds Brillhart does not disclose
that the control system is configured to perform a cyclical oxidation and
etching process. Id. at 4. The Examiner finds Brillhart discloses a process
gas supply inlet, but does not explicitly disclose oxygen-containing gas, inert
gas, and etching gas supply inlets. Id. at 3--4, 6.
5
Appeal2017-010744
Application 12/720,926
The Examiner finds Ouchi discloses that in a semiconductor etching
method, processing time can be shortened by successively performing
oxidation and etching steps in the same chamber and on the same substrate
support. Final Act. 4 ( citing Ouchi ,r 21 ). Ouchi discloses that oxidation
and etching are conducted at temperatures of 200-350 °C and 30-50 °C,
respectively. Ouchi ,r 19; see Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds Ouchi
discloses that by performing a cyclical oxidation and etching process, "it is
possible to control the quantity of the pullback (retraction amount) of the
silicon nitride film" (Ouchi ,r 20). Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that
based on the advantages taught by Ouchi (i.e., reduced processing time and
improved control of film retraction), one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention would have modified Brillhart's apparatus to render it
capable of performing a cyclical oxidation and etching process by supplying
an oxidizing gas to the chamber at the first temperature and an etching gas to
the chamber at the second temperature. Id. at 5.
Sugimoto discloses a plasma processing apparatus and method.
Sugimoto ,r 1. The Examiner finds Sugimoto discloses separate sources
45A-D for supplying an oxygen-containing gas, an inert gas, and an etching
gas to a plasma source (upper electrode 4) in process chamber 21 for the
purpose of etching an oxide layer on a substrate. Final Act. 5 ( citing Fig. 1 );
see Sugimoto ,r 54. The Examiner finds the ordinary artisan at the time of
the invention would have replaced Brillhart's generic gas supply system
with Sugimoto's gas supply system in order to render Brillhart's apparatus
capable of performing Ouchi' s cyclical oxidation and etching process. Final
Act. 6.
6
Appeal2017-010744
Application 12/720,926
The Examiner finds the claimed heating system and cooling system
( claim 1) read on Brillhart' s heating/ cooling system located in wafer support
pedestal 105 and the heating/cooling system located in the showerhead.
Final Act. 3 ( citing Brillhart ,r 40), 7 ( citing Brillhart Fig. 1 ); see also Ans.
18. The Examiner acknowledges, however, that Brillhart, Ouchi, and
Sugimoto, individually or in combination, do not disclose or suggest a
heating system comprising a resistive heater, as required by appealed claims
5-7. Id. at 7. The Examiner finds Mariner discloses a substrate holder
having independent resistive heating system 3 and independent fluid cooling
system 2. Id. Mariner discloses that the heating apparatus provides a
relatively uniform temperature distribution to a substrate in a semiconductor-
processing chamber. Mariner ,r 2. The Examiner finds one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention would have added a resistive heater to
Brillhart's showerhead and substrate holder to provide an alternate and
equivalent heater that would allow heating to a temperature higher than what
is possible with a fluid heating system. Final Act. 7-8.
Appellants contend the Examiner's obviousness determination is
based on several erroneous or unsupported findings of fact. Specifically,
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding that
1. Brillhart's control, heating, and cooling systems are capable of
cycling between a first temperature greater than about 100 °C and a second
temperature below about 50 °C (e.g., a range of about 25° C to about 35 °C
(claim 18)) within a time period of less than about three minutes (Appeal Br.
14--15, 17, 20);
2. Brillhart discloses separate heating and cooling systems (id. at
15-16, 19);
7
Appeal2017-010744
Application 12/720,926
3. Brillhart discloses a cooling system comprising a showerhead
(id. at 19--20);
4. the ordinary artisan would have modified Brillhart based on the
teachings of both Ouchi and Sugimoto (id. at 18);
5. the ordinary artisan would have had a reason to modify
Brillhart's apparatus to render it capable of performing a cyclical oxidation
and etching process (id. at 17-18);
6. the ordinary artisan would have had a reason to modify
Brillhart's apparatus to include Mariner's resistive heater (id. at 21-22); and
7. Mariner's resistive heater is equivalent to Brillhart's heating
system (id. at 22). 4
We have considered these arguments, but are not persuaded of
reversible error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness for the reasons
stated in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following.
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner's findings as to Brillhart 's
heating and cooling systems (above-listed findings 1-3) are erroneous or
unsupported by the evidence of record?
Brillhart discloses a temperature control apparatus comprising a
PCHT loop that includes a heat exchanger comprising flow passages 200 for
a PCHT medium. Brillhart ,r 40; see id. at Figs. 1, 7. Flow passages 200 are
located in wafer support pedestal/electrostatic chuck 105. Id. ,r 40. The
PCHT loop can operate in either of two modes: in the cooling mode, the
heat exchanger functions as an evaporator, and in the heating mode, the heat
exchanger functions as a condenser. Id. The configuration and operation of
4 Any arguments made by Appellants but not explicitly discussed in this
Decision have been addressed fully by the Examiner and are unpersuasive
for the reasons stated in the Answer.
8
Appeal2017-010744
Application 12/720,926
Brillhart's PCHT loop is substantially identical to that of Appellants'
temperature feedback control system 1454. Compare Brillhart ,r,r 40-41,
70-73, with Spec. ,r,r 115-120; see Spec. ,r 111 ("[T]he system show[n] in
Figure 13B [uses] a temperature feedback control system 1454 of the type
shown in United States Patent Application Publication No. 2007 /0097580
[(Brillhart)], in which a feedback control loop processor 1455 governs a
backside gas pressure valve 1456."). Because of the similarity in the
configurations of Brillhart' s PCHT loop and Appellants' temperature
feedback control system 1454 for controlling temperature of the wafer, the
Examiner had a reasonable basis for finding Brillhart's PCHT loop, that
includes control, heating, and cooling systems, is capable of cycling between
a first temperature greater than about 100 °C and a second temperature
below about 50 °C (e.g., a range of about 25 °C to about 35 °C (claim 18))
within a time period of less than about three minutes.
[W]here the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional
limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the
claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent
characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to
require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to
be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on.
In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re
Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210,213 (CCPA 1971)).
We find the Examiner's detailed analysis of Brillhart's overhead
structure on page 22 of the Answer, that includes citations to supporting
evidence, supports the Examiner's finding that, in addition to the heating and
cooling provided by the PCHT loop, Brillhart's apparatus includes a separate
cooling system comprising a showerhead disposed in the chamber adjacent
the wafer support. See Brillhart Fig. 1, ,r 25.
9
Appeal2017-010744
Application 12/720,926
Appellants argue the Examiner misinterprets Brillhart's disclosure in
paragraphs 68-75 as disclosing that "the control system, the heating system
and the cooling system are configured to cycle between the first temperature
and the second temperature instantaneously ( from a few seconds to less than
a second)." Appeal Br. 14 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Final Act. 3).
Appellants argue Brillhart is describing how quickly a wafer begins to
respond to a temperature change in the electrostatic chuck, not how quickly
wafer temperature actually changes from the first temperature to the second
temperature and vice versa. Id. ( citing Brillhart ,r 72). Appellants argue the
temperature of Brillhart's electrostatic chuck is not capable of cycling
between the first and second temperatures in less than three minutes. Reply
Br. 2 ("The rate of changing a temperature 'is so slow that, for example,
with an electrostatic chuck for supporting a 300 mm workpiece or silicon
wafer, a 10 deg C. change in workpiece temperature can require on
the order of a minute or more."' ( quoting Brillhart ,r 71) ).
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. In paragraph 74, Brillhart
discloses that "[t]he dual loop control afforded by the master processor 232
can be employed to (nearly) instantly move the wafer temperature to a new
desired level and hold it there while the [ electrostatic chuck] temperature
slowly changes to the new desired temperature." In paragraph 75, Brillhart
discloses that "the [ electrostatic chuck] temperature change may be delayed
while the PCHT loop is allowed to slowly adjust to a new temperature (to
accommodate a time lag to the [ electrostatic chuck] surface of about 50
degrees over 5 seconds)." Appellants fail to explain why the ordinary
artisan would not have understood from paragraphs 74--75 that Brilllhart's
system is capable of cycling between the first and second temperatures (i.e.,
10
Appeal2017-010744
Application 12/720,926
greater than about 100° C and below about 50° C) in less than three minutes.
See Ans. 14--16.
Appellants' argument that the temperature of Brillhart' s electrostatic
chuck is not capable of cycling between the first and second temperatures in
less than three minutes (Reply Br. 2) is also unpersuasive because the claims
require only that the system is capable of heating and cooling the substrate
(wafer) in a time period of less than about three minutes. The language
quoted by Appellants in support of this argument-Brillhart paragraph
71-is substantially identical to the language in Specification paragraph 118.
Both Brillhart and the Specification explain that in making a desired change
in wafer temperature, the temperature regulation system changes backside
gas pressure to effect a change in thermal conductivity between the
workpiece and the support pedestal. Brillhart ,r 68; Spec. ,r 119. "The rate at
which the workpiece temperature responds to such a change is extremely
high because it is limited only by the rate at which the backside gas pressure
can be changed and the thermal mass of the workpiece." Brillhart ,r 72;
Spec. ,r 119; see also Brillhart ,r 68 ("[A] temperature regulation system
employing the backside gas pressure provides agile temperature control
capable of making fast adjustments to wafer temperature"). By comparison,
"changing the temperature of the base of the [ electrostatic chuck] or wafer
support pedestal ... does not cause the wafer to reach a new ( elevated or
depressed) equilibrium or steady state wafer temperature for on the order of
minute [sic] (depending upon the thermal mass of the [electrostatic chuck])."
Brillhart ,r 68; see Spec. ,r 119.
Appellants also argue "there is no reason to expect the showerhead
heater/cooler of Brillhart to effectively change the temperature of the
11
Appeal2017-010744
Application 12/720,926
substrate as required by the claims. Rather, the showerhead heater/cooler is
likely effective to change the temperature of the process gases." Reply Br.
3. As an initial matter, we note that claim 4, which recites that "the cooling
system comprises a showerhead," does not require that the showerhead, or at
least the showerhead alone, effect a change in the temperature of the
substrate. See In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d 1262, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
( explaining that in patent claims, the term "comprising" means "including
but not limited to")). In other words, claim 4 encompasses a cooling system
in which cooling of the substrate is effected primarily by a control loop that
adjusts temperature of the substrate support. Therefore, Appellants'
argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim language. This
argument also is not persuasive because it was reasonable for the Examiner
to find that Brillhart's showerhead would be capable of functioning in the
same manner as Appellants' showerhead, and because Appellants have not
provided evidence to support their argument. See Final Act. 13-14; Reply
Br. 3; In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (explaining that
argument by counsel cannot take the place of evidence).
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and in the Final Office
Action and the Answer, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's
findings as to Brillhart's heating and cooling systems. See above-listed
findings 1-3 supra pp. 7-8.
Have Appellants shown the Examiner's findings that the ordinary
artisan would have had a reason to modify Brillhart based on the teachings
of Ouchi and Sugimoto (above-listed findings 4 and 5) are erroneous or
unsupported by the evidence of record?
Appellants argue the Examiner relies on improper hindsight reasoning
in finding that the ordinary artisan would have modified Brillhart's
12
Appeal2017-010744
Application 12/720,926
apparatus to render it capable of performing a cyclical oxidation and etching
process. Appeal Br. 18. The Examiner finds that the ordinary artisan would
have modified Brillhart's apparatus to render it capable of performing a
cyclical oxidation and etching process as taught by Ouchi. See Final Act.
4--5. Appellants argue the ordinary artisan would not have made this
modification because Brillhart does not disclose a cyclical oxidation and
etching process, and Ouchi does not disclose a control system configured to
cycle between two temperatures. Appeal Br. 18. This argument is not
persuasive because it is directed to the individual teachings of the references
and fails to identify error in the Examiner's finding that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have modified Brillhart based on the advantages of a
cyclical oxidation and etching process as disclosed by Ouchi. See Final Act.
4--5 (citing Ouchi ,r,r 20-21).
Appellants argue one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
modified Brillhart based on the teachings of both Ouchi and Sugimoto
because "they relate to opposite results": Ouchi is concerned with
broadening a trench opening between patterns of an etching mask and
Sugimoto relates to decreasing the openings size of the opening portion of a
resist mask. Appeal Br. 18. As explained by the Examiner, obviousness
does not require physical combinability of apparatus parts from different
references. Ans. 21. Where an inventor is considering how to design a
particular mechanism to fit a specific type of device, he or she "would
naturally look to references employing" other forms of that mechanism, even
where they are found in different types of devices. In re ICON Health and
Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379--80 (Fed. Cir. 2007). A reference's
teachings and its obvious variants are relevant prior art, even if the reference
13
Appeal2017-010744
Application 12/720,926
addresses a problem which differs from that addressed by a patent applicant.
In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
In sum, for the reasons discussed above and in the Final Office Action
and the Answer, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's findings
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Brillhart based on
the teachings of Ouchi and Sugimoto. See above-listed findings 4 and 5
supra p. 8.
Have Appellants shown the Examiner's findings that the ordinary
artisan would have had a reason to modify Brillhart based on the teachings
of Mariner (above-listed findings 6 and 7) are erroneous or unsupported by
the evidence of record?
Appellants argue Mariner's resistive heater is not equivalent to
Brillhart's heating system and that inclusion of a resistive heater in
Brillhart's apparatus could interfere with the principle of operation of
Brillhart's apparatus. Appeal Br. 22. Appellants argue the Examiner has not
provided support for a finding that the ordinary artisan would have been
motivated to use a resistive heater in Brillhart's apparatus to enable higher
operating temperatures. See id. at 22-23.
We find these arguments unpersuasive for the reasons stated in the
Examiner's detailed response on pages 23-27 of the Answer. We add that
Appellants' arguments are also unconvincing because they are not supported
by persuasive evidence. See Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1471.
Rejections based on Kitayama (Grounds 3-5)
The Examiner finds Kitayama discloses an apparatus comprising the
majority of features recited in claims 1, 3-7 and 18 (see generally Final Act.
8-13), including control, heating, and cooling systems configured to cycle
between a first temperature greater than 100 °C and a second temperature
14
Appeal2017-010744
Application 12/720,926
less than 50 °C "immediately which is within a time period of less than
about three minutes" (id. at 9 (citing Kitayama ,r 64)). As to the claimed
time period of "less than about three minutes" ( claim 1 ), the Examiner finds,
in the alternative, that the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to
modify Kitayama's apparatus to enable adjusting wafer temperature between
the first and second temperatures in a time period of less than three minutes
to achieve Kitayama's goal of improving throughput. Id. at 15-16 (citing
Kitayama ,r 69). The Examiner relies on Ouchi, Sugimoto, and Mariner for
the same teachings discussed above regarding the rejections based on
Brillhart (Grounds 1 and 2). See id. at 9-13. The Examiner relies on
Brillhart for a teaching of a cooling system comprising a showerhead, as
recited in claim 4. Id. at 11. The Examiner finds the ordinary artisan would
have added a showerhead to Kitayama's apparatus "to provide an alternate
cooling source as taught by Brillhart ... and to more uniformly distribute the
plasma as is taught by Brillhart ... and well known in the art." Id. at 12.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Kitayama discloses or
suggests a system capable of cycling between the first and second
temperatures-at least a 50 °C difference-in a time period of less than
about three minutes. Appeal Br. 24. Appellants contend Kitayama discloses
that the device immediately begins to change temperature, which is not the
same as an immediate change in temperature. Id.
Appellants' argument is not persuasive because it fails to address and,
therefore, fails to identify error in the Examiner's finding that the ordinary
artisan having the goal of improving throughput would have modified
Kitayama's apparatus to enable adjusting wafer temperature in the manner
recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 15-16; Kitayama ,r 69 ("[T]he low
15
Appeal2017-010744
Application 12/720,926
temperature process step and high temperature process step can be
performed swiftly and continuously in one process chamber 24, without
lowering throughput. A cooling medium ( cooling water) is fed to the
auxiliary flow passage 52 . . . . This makes it possible to accelerate the
temperature descent speed of the worktable 40, so as to further improve
throughput."); see also Kitayama ,r,r 70-71 (noting that temperature ascent
and descent can be conducted rapidly).
Appellants' remaining arguments as to the grounds of rejection based
on Kitayama are similar to those made by Appellants in traversing the
grounds of rejection based on Brillhart. See generally Appeal Br. 24--27.
These arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons explained on pages 28-29
of the Answer and in the above discussion of the arguments made in support
of patentability of the claims over Brillhart.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we sustain all grounds of rejection as listed in the table
below.
1,3,4,and § 103(a) Brillhart, Ouchi, 1,3,4,and
18 and Su imoto 18
5-7 § 103(a) Brillhart, Ouchi, 5-7
Sugimoto, and
Mariner
1, 3, and 18 § 103(a) Kitayama, 1, 3, and 18
Ouchi, and
Sugimoto
4 § 103(a) Kitayama, 4
Ouchi,
Sugimoto, and
Brillhart
16
Appeal2017-010744
Application 12/720,926
5-7
Summary
§ 103(a) Kitayama,
Ouchi,
Sugimoto,
Brillhart, and
Mariner
5-7
1, 3-7, and
18
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. §1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
17