Ex Parte Lubomirsky et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 20, 2014

11888341 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DMITRY LUBOMIRSKY, XINGLONG CHEN,
SUDHIR GONDHALEKAR, KADTHALA RAMAYA NARENDRNATH,
MUHAMMAD RASHEED, and TONY KAUSHAL
____________

Appeal 2012-008931
Application 11/888,3411
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before: ANTON W. FETTING, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Dmitry Lubomirsky et al. (“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 8–13, and 16–
19. The Board has jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Examiner’s decision is AFFIRMED.

1 The Appeal Brief identifies Applied Materials, Inc. as the real party in
interest. See App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2012-008931
Application 11/888,341

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal:
1. A method for refurbishing at least a portion of an
electrostatic chuck having a plate and a first dielectric
component, wherein the first dielectric component comprises a
tube inserted into the plate and the plate is adapted to be
positioned within a channel to define a plenum, wherein the
dielectric first component provides at least a portion of a fluid
passage coupled to the plenum, the method comprising:
removing the first dielectric component from the plate of
the electrostatic chuck, wherein the first dielectric component is
positioned to provide a fluid to a back surface of a substrate that
faces the electrostatic chuck when the substrate is disposed on
the electrostatic chuck; and
replacing the first dielectric component with a second
dielectric component.
App. Br. 11.
REJECTIONS
Appellants request our review of the following rejections. See App.
Br. 3–4.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 11–13, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Weldon (US 6,414,834 B1, iss. July 2,
2002) and Schneider (US 6,263,829 B1, iss. July 24, 2001).
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Weldon, Schneider, and Lin (US 2004/0007800 A1, pub.
Jan. 15, 2004).
ANALYSIS
A Obviousness Rejection based upon Weldon and Schneider
Appellants do not argue for the patentability of claims 2, 5, 8, 9, 11–
13, 16, 17, and 19 separately from claim 1. See App. Br. 4–8; Reply Br. 4–
5. Therefore, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011), we
Appeal 2012-008931
Application 11/888,341

3
select claim 1 to decide the appeal of the rejection of these claims, with the
other claims standing or falling with claim 1.
Appellants contend that “contrary to the Examiner’s assertions,
Schneider does not teach a method for refurbishing an electrostatic chuck”
(emphasis added), but rather Schneider’s refurbished gas distributor 50 “is
disposed about the electrostatic chuck 40,” and Schneider’s gas
distributor 50 and electrostatic chuck 40 are “separate, distinct components.”
App. Br. 5. Appellants similarly argue that, even if Weldon and Schneider
were combined, it would yield a gas distributor having a gas manifold with
removable inserts for providing gas around a substrate (as taught by
Schneider), with the substrate disposed on top of Weldon’s electrostatic
chuck. See App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 5.
In response, the Examiner concedes that Schneider’s refurbished gas
distributor 50 is “separate from the electrostatic chuck” of Schneider.
Ans. 9. Nonetheless, the Examiner maintains the respective gas distribution
systems of Weldon and Schneider “operate in a very similar fashion” and
have many similar structural features, so that it would be obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to apply Schneider’s refurbishing method to the
Weldon system “to refurbish the electrostatic chuck without having to
replace the entire fluid distribution element.” Id. at 5, 9–10.
The Examiner’s response is persuasive. Weldon discloses, in
Figure 5c, an electrostatic chuck having dielectric tube 200b inserted into
plate 180, with plate 180 being positioned in a channel of electrode 110 to
form plenum 155a and 155b, such that a gas travels from the plenum up into
the tube for distribution to a substrate on top of the chuck. See Weldon,
Fig. 5c, 10:10–15, 10:53–11:9; see also Ans. 9–10 (discussing these features
Appeal 2012-008931
Application 11/888,341

4
of Weldon). Schneider similarly discloses, in Figures 9a–9c, a gas
distribution system including dielectric tube 140 inserted into plate 142
having plenum 120, such that a gas travels from the plenum up into the tube
for distribution into a processing chamber. See Schneider, Figs. 9a–9c, 6:1–
7, 10:16–63; see also Ans. 9–10 (discussing these features of Schneider).
Both Weldon and Schneider indicate their respective dielectric tube 200b or
140 functions to reduce plasma formation and thereby improve the lifetime
of the gas distribution system, which is part of the chuck in Weldon and
which surrounds the chuck in Schneider. See Weldon, 2:56–3:5, 3:30–40,
5:51–56, 8:29–35; Schneider, 2:11–22, 6:40–64, 10:57–63. As the
Examiner concluded, these similarities between Weldon and Schneider in
structure and in function would have led one of ordinary skill to remove and
replace the dielectric tube component of Weldon for cleaning or
replacement, as disclosed in Schneider for its dielectric tube 140. See
Ans. 5, 9–10; Schneider, 10:28–36.
Appellants also contend that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not
combine the references in the manner suggested by the Examiner as each of
the cited references teaches vastly different gas distribution mechanisms
configured to perform different functions within a process chamber.” App.
Br. 6–8 (emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 4–5 (making same argument).
That is, in Weldon’s Figure 5c, electrode 110 is “buried” in dielectric
member 115 of electrostatic chuck 100, and “[t]he conduit 150 and/or
dielectric insert 200b function as a passageway to provide a gas from a gas
source 165 to the top surface 170 of the chuck 100 to regulate a temperature
of a substrate disposed thereon.” App. Br. 7. By contrast, assert Appellants,
Schneider’s “insert 140 comprises an orifice 115 that is oriented to direct a
Appeal 2012-008931
Application 11/888,341

5
flow of gas at an inclined angle relative to the plane of the substrate 30 to
provide a uniform distribution of gas in the process chamber 15.” Id.
While Appellants correctly describe some differences in structure and
function between Weldon and Schneider, there are also many similarities in
structure and function, as discussed above. It is well settled that obviousness
does not require that all of the features of the secondary reference be bodily
incorporated into the primary reference. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981). In this case, the Examiner is not proposing to modify
Weldon’s electrostatic chuck with Schneider’s insert, as Appellants argue,
but merely to refurbish at least a portion of Weldon’s electrostatic chuck in
view of Schneider’s teaching the benefit of replacing components, namely,
“to refurbish the electrostatic chuck without having to replace the entire gas
distribution system.” See Ans. 10 (citing Schneider, 3:6–15). Thus, the
differences do not overcome the prima facie case for obviousness provided
by the Examiner and summarized above.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 11–13,
16, 17, and 19 as unpatentable over Weldon and Schneider is sustained.
B Obviousness Rejection based upon Weldon, Schneider, and Lin
Appellants contend this rejection of claims 10 and 18 is improper on
the sole basis that the respective parent independent claims are not
unpatentable over Weldon and Schneider. See App. Br. 8–9; Reply Br. 6.
For the reasons set forth above, Appellants’ arguments in that regard are
unpersuasive. This rejection is therefore sustained.
Appeal 2012-008931
Application 11/888,341

6
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 11–13, 16, 17, and 19 as
unpatentable over Weldon and Schneider, and the rejection of claims 10 and
18 as unpatentable over Weldon, Schneider, and Lin, are 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

Klh