Ex Parte O

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 9, 2013

12230413 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERT J. O’DONNELL
____________

Appeal 2012-004632
Application 12/230,413
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, GEORGE C. BEST, and
GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-004632
Application 12/230,413
2
On April 12, 2011, the Examiner finally rejected claims 41-56 and 58-
60 of Application 12/230,413 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious.
Appellant1 seeks reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
The ’413 application describes components of plasma etching devices
used in semiconductor manufacturing equipment that have increased erosion
and corrosion resistance and methods for the manufacture of such
components. Spec. ¶¶ 0002-0009.
Claim 41 is the only independent claim in the ’413 application and is
reproduced below:
41. A method of plasma processing a semiconductor
substrate in a semiconductor processing apparatus, comprising:
supporting the semiconductor substrate on a substrate
support in a vacuum chamber of the apparatus;
introducing processing gas into the chamber;
energizing the processing gas into a plasma state; and
plasma processing the semiconductor substrate;
the chamber including at least one component having an
outermost surface of a ceramic material wherein the outermost
surface is exposed to the plasma, and the ceramic material
comprising a material selected from the group consisting of
strontium oxide, strontium nitride, strontium boride, and

1 LAM Research Corp. is identified as the real party in interest. (App.
Br. 2.)
Appeal 2012-004632
Application 12/230,413
3
strontium carbide as a single largest constituent of the ceramic
material.
(App. Br. Claims App’x 1.)
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 41-45, 47-49, 56, 58, and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Yumiko2 and
Billings.3 (Ans. 4.)
2. Claims 46, 50-55, and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Yumiko, Billings, and Lin.4
(Ans. 7.)
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 41-45, 47-49, 56, 58, and
60 as obvious over the combination of Yumiko and Billings. (Ans. 4.)
Appellant stipulates that dependent claims 42-56 and 58-60 stand or fall with
claim 41. (App. Br. 14.) We, therefore, limit our discussion to claim 41.
We affirm the rejection of claim 41 as obvious over the combination
of Yumiko and Billings based upon the findings and for the reasons
provided in the Examiner’s Answer. We add the following for emphasis.
The Examiner found that Yumiko describes each of claim 41’s
limitations except the requirement that at least one of the components of the

2 JP 10-004083, published Jan. 6, 1998. English language translations of
Yumiko’s Abstract and Specification are of record in the ’413 application.
3 U.S. Patent No. 5,934,900, issued Aug. 10, 1999.
4 U.S. Patent No. 6,777,045 B2, issued Aug. 17, 2004.
Appeal 2012-004632
Application 12/230,413
4
chamber have a ceramic coating “comprising a material selected from the
group consisting of strontium oxide, strontium nitride, strontium boride, and
strontium carbide as a single largest constituent of the ceramic material.”
(Ans. 4-5.) Appellant does not challenge this finding. (See App. Br.
generally.) Rather than strontium, Yumiko describes the use of a ceramic
material comprising an oxide, nitride, carbide, or fluoride of a group IIIB
metal such as Sc, La, Ce, Eu, or Dy.
The Examiner relies upon Billings for its description of a high-
temperature corrosion-resistant ceramic coating comprising a strontium
compound. (Ans. 5.) In particular, Billings describes ceramic coatings
comprising nitrides, mixed nitrides and oxides, and oxynitrides of Be, Mg,
Ca, Sr, and Ba. Billings, col. 2, ll. 39-47. Billings also describes the use of
nitrides, mixed nitrides and oxides, and oxynitrides of Be, Mg, Ca, Sr, and
Ba in high temperature corrosion resistant coatings. Id. at col. 2, ll. 51-53.
Appellant argues that the rejection is improper because Billings is
non-analogous art. (App. Br. 6-7.) The Examiner, however, correctly found
that Appellant’s field of endeavor included materials that provide improved
resistance to chemical attack, including erosion and corrosion. (Ans. 9.)
The Examiner further found that Billings describes its subject matter as
articles with high resistance to high temperature corrosive environments.
(Id.) Billings, therefore, is analogous art that may be used as the basis of an
obviousness rejection.
Appellant next argues that the Examiner has not established that the
strontium compounds described in Billings were not art-recognized
equivalents to the coating materials described in Yumiko. (App. Br. 9-12.)
Billings, however, identifies both nitrides of scandium and strontium as
useful materials in its ceramic coatings. Billings, col. 2, ll. 39-54; col. 4, ll.
Appeal 2012-004632
Application 12/230,413
5
8-10; col. 4, ll. 35-42. We, therefore, are not persuaded by Appellant’s
arguments that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a
reasonable expectation the scandium nitride-based ceramic described in
Yumiko could be replaced successfully with Billing’s strontium nitride-
based ceramic material.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 41 as
obvious over the combination of Yumiko and Billings.
Rejection 2. The Examiner rejected claims 46, 50-55, and 59 as
obvious over the combination of Yumiko, Billings, and Lin. (Ans. 7.)
Appellant argues that this rejection should be reversed because Lin does cure
the alleged deficiencies in the combination of Yumiko and Billings. (App.
Br. 16.)
As discussed above, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments
that the combination of Yumiko and Billings is deficient. Thus, we also
affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 46, 50-55, and 59 as obvious.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejections of claims 41-
56 and 58-60 of the ’413 application as obvious.

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

cdc