Ex Parte Myo et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 13, 2012

11127753 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 13, 2012)

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.
11/127,753 05/12/2005 Nyi Oo Myo 008527.02/FEP/GATE/PJT 5313
44257 7590 06/14/2012
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX
3040 POST OAK BOULEVARD, SUITE 1500
HOUSTON, TX 77056
EXAMINER
FORD, NATHAN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/14/2012 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 NYI OO MYO, KENRIC CHOI, SHREYAS KHER,
PRAVIN NARWANKAR, STEVE POPPE,
CRAIG R. METZNER, and PAUL DEATEN
________________

Appeal 2011-001950
Application 11/127,753
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, CHUNG K. PAK, and
TERRY J. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-29. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1 and 20 are illustrative:
1. An apparatus for processing substrates, comprising:

a substrate support comprising a substrate receiving surface and
positioned within a process chamber;

Appeal 2011-001950
Application 11/127,753

2
a chamber lid comprising:

an expanding channel formed within a thermally insulating
material at a central portion of the chamber lid; and

a tapered bottom surface extending from the expanding channel
to a peripheral portion of the chamber lid, wherein the tapered bottom
surface is shaped and sized to substantially cover the substrate
receiving surface;

a first conduit coupled to a first gas inlet within the expanding
channel; and

a second conduit coupled to a second gas inlet within the expanding
channel, wherein the first conduit and the second conduit are positioned to
provide a gas flow in a circular direction through the expanding channel.

20. An apparatus for depositing an oxygen containing material by an ALD
process, comprising:

an ALD process chamber comprising a substrate support exposed to a
process region, a first ALD valve assembly and a second ALD valve
assembly;

a first precursor source coupled to the first ALD valve assembly in
fluid communication with the process region; and

an oxygen source and a hydrogen source in fluid communication with
a water vapor generator comprising a catalyst, wherein the water vapor
generator is coupled to the second ALD valve assembly in fluid
communication with the process region.

The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness (Supp. Ans. Filed Sep. 07, 2010):
Bang 6,117,244 Sep. 12, 2000
Ohmi 2001/0048907 A1 Dec. 06, 2001
Chen 2003/0079686 A1 May 01, 2003
Wang 2003/0213560 A1 Nov. 20, 2003
Appeal 2011-001950
Application 11/127,753

3
Vaartstra 2004/0040494 A1 Mar. 04, 2004
Hara 6,830,618 B2 Dec. 14, 2004

The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
follows:
(a) Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-14 over Chen in view of Bang,
(b) Claim 4 over Chen in view of Bang and Hara,
(c) Claim 6 over Chen in view of Bang and Wang,
(d) Claims 15-19 over Chen in view of Bang, Vaartstra and
Ohmi, and
(e) Claims 20-29 over Chen in view of Vaartstra and Ohmi.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions advanced by
Appellants and the Examiner. In so doing, we agree with Appellants that the
applied prior art does not factually support the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1-19. We concur with the Examiner, however, that the subject matter
of claims 20-29 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
We consider first the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-19. These
claims define an apparatus for atomic layer deposition (ALD) comprising,
inter alia, a chamber lid comprising an expanding channel formed within a
thermally insulating material. The Examiner recognizes that Chen does not
disclose that the expanding channel of the ALD apparatus is formed within a
thermally insulating material. Indeed, Chen teaches a thermally conductive
material for the chamber lid which may include cooling elements and/or
heating elements to control the temperature of the lid, and that the lid may be
made of stainless steel, aluminum, nickel-plated aluminum, nickel or other
suitable materials compatible with the processing.
Appeal 2011-001950
Application 11/127,753

4
To remedy this deficiency of Chen, the Examiner cites the chemical
vapor deposition apparatus of Bang which uses a ceramic chamber liner to
facilitate the removal of unwanted byproducts. According to the Examiner,
it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to dispose a
ceramic liner on the underside of Chen’s chamber lid in order to prevent the
corrosion of the lid and facilitate byproduct removal (see Ans. 4, first para.).
We do not subscribe to the Examiner’s reasoning. We agree with
Appellants that the use of an insulating, ceramic liner on the underside of the
chamber lid would run counter to Chen’s desire to control the temperature of
the chamber lid by surrounding it with heating elements. While the
Examiner focuses upon Chen’s use of the term “may” to characterize the
heating and cooling of the lid as optional, the fact remains that modifying
Chen’s lid with a ceramic liner would at minimum remove a desirable
option. Furthermore, the claims require that the expanding channel is
formed within a thermally insulating material, and the Examiner’s proposed
ceramic liner on the underside of the lid would not result in the channel
being formed within the insulating material.
Appealed claims 20-29 are not directed to an expanding channel but,
rather, oxygen and hydrogen sources in fluid communication with a water
vapor generator that is coupled to the second of two ALD valve assemblies.
Although Chen does not disclose the provision of water vapor in the ALD
apparatus, we agree with the Examiner that Vaartstra and Ohmi evidence the
obviousness of using water vapor as an oxidizing agent in forming an oxide
on a substrate in an ALD process. We find no merit in Appellants’ argument
that the disclosures of Ohmi and Vaartstra, the secondary references, provide
a teaching away from each other since Vaartstra provides pulses of water
Appeal 2011-001950
Application 11/127,753

5
vapor and Ohmi teaches continuously producing moisture. The Examiner’s
rejection does not require the combination of the features of the secondary
references. We note that Appellants have presented no argument concerning
the nonobviousness of providing water vapor in the ALD system of Chen.
Nor have Appellants presented an argument based on objective evidence
of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1-19 is reversed, and the rejection of claims 20-29 is sustained.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed-in-part.

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-IN-PART

ssl