Ex Parte Olgado

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2017

12914997 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2017)

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.
12/914,997 10/28/2010 Donald J.K. Olgado 013924/DISPLAY/SOLAR-CVD/ 6854
44257 7590 09/14/2017
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - Applied Materials
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
EXAMINER
DHINGRA, RAKESH KUMAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2017 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):
Pair_Eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DONALD J. K. OLGADO
Appeal 2016-000901
Application 12/914,997
Technology Center 1700
Before PETER F. KRATZ, GEORGE C. BEST, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s March
11, 2015 decision finally rejecting claims 1—4, 6, and 8—14 (“Final Act.”). We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Applied Materials, Inc.
(Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal 2016-000901
Application 12/914,997
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ invention is directed to a process chamber for processing of
substrates in a substantially vertical orientation (Abstract). The claimed process
chamber has single PECVD chamber divided into two processing regions with a
vertically oriented antenna structure positioned between the spots where the
substrates are positioned (id.). Details of the claimed invention are set forth in
claim 1, as reproduced below from the Claims Appendix (emphasis added):
1. A process chamber for processing of substrates, comprising:
a PECVD chamber having a single processing volume
having two processing regions configured to process substrates
held in a face to face, vertical orientation;
a vertically oriented antenna structure centrally located
within the PECVD chamber,
the antenna structure separating the two processing
regions within the single processing volume;
a vertically oriented gas feed structure, separate from the
vertically oriented antenna structure and extending into the
process volume proximate the antenna structure, wherein the
vertically oriented gas feed structure is disposed between a
substrate processing location and the vertically oriented antenna
structure; and
conveyors operable to move substrates into and out of the
PECVD chamber while maintaining the substrates in a vertical
orientation.
REJECTIONS
I. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sant2 in view of Kurata.3
2 Sant, US 2009/0004874 Al, published January 1, 2009.
3 Kurata et al., US 2011/0180402 Al, published July 28, 2011.
2
Appeal 2016-000901
Application 12/914,997
II. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sant in view of Kurata, and further in view of Burger.4
III. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sant in view of Kurata, and further in view of Takagi.5
IV. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Saito6 in view of Sant and Kurata.
V. Claims 2, 3, 10, 13, and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Saito in view of Sant and Kurata, and further in view of
Takagi.
VI. Claims 4, 6, 8, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Saito in view of Sant and Kurata and Takagi, and
further in view of Setsuhara.7
VII. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as unpatentable
over Saito in view of Sant and Kurata, and further in view of Burger.
VIII. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as unpatentable
over Saito in view of Sant and Kurata, Takagi, Setsuhara, and further in
view of Moslehi.8
DISCUSSION
Appellant argues the rejections in two groups: (1) Rejections I—III,
with Sant as the primary reference, and (2) Rejections IV—VIII, with Saito as
4 Burger et al., US 2002/0100420 Al, published August 1, 2002.
5 Takagi et al., US 2004/0121086 Al, published June 24, 2004.
6 Saito et al., JP 2001-126899, published May 2001. Like both Appellant
and the Examiner, we refer to the machine translation of record.
7 Setsuhara et al., JP 2009-123906, published April 6, 2009. We refer to
corresponding US 2010/0263797, published October 21, 2010.
8 Moslehi, US 2001/0047760 Al, published December 6, 2001.
3
Appeal 2016-000901
Application 12/914,997
the primary reference. No individual claims are argued separately, so we
will address the rejection of claim 1 over Sant in view of Kurata, and the
rejection of claim 1 over Saito in view of Sant and Kurata.
We have considered the arguments set forth by Appellant and the
evidence proffered in support thereof in the Appeal Brief and the Reply
Brief. Except as set forth below, these arguments are not persuasive,
essentially for the reasons set forth by the Examiner. We add the following
for emphasis.
Rejections I—III. The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing
a prima facie case of obviousness based on an inherent or explicit disclosure
of the claimed subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on
review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie
case of unpatentability.”). To establish a prima facie case of obviousness,
the Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is
described or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on
the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Fine, 837 F.2d
1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Appellant contends that Sant does not teach a vertically oriented
antenna structure centrally located within the PECVD chamber, the antenna
structure separating the two processing regions within a single processing
volume (Appeal Br. 7). The Examiner finds that Sant discloses:
a vertically oriented antenna structure 326 (Fig. 3 and 0023)
centrally located within the process chamber 300 (Fig. 3), the
antenna structure separating the two processing regions 310,
410 within the single processing volume (Fig. 3) (it is noted
that dictionary meaning of “within” is “inside something”, per
4
Appeal 2016-000901
Application 12/914,997
Merriam Webster Dictionary}; and that antenna 326 is located
within the plasma processing chamber 300 (Fig. 3).
(Final Act. 3). An annotated version of Sant’s FIG. 3 is shown below:
Sant’s FIG. 3 FIG. 3 is a cross-sectional view of an inductively coupled
plasma processing apparatus for processing two horizontally spaced apart
substrates in a vertical configuration.
As shown in FIG. 3, Sant discloses a processing chamber 300 with
separate processing regions 310 and 410, in which substrates 316 and 416
are held in a vertical position. Vertically oriented antenna 326 is located in
space 334. The Examiner finds that antenna 326 is located “within the
PECVD chamber” 300, because the “dictionary meaning of “within” is
“inside something”; “and that antenna 326 is located within the plasma
processing chamber 300” (Final Act. 3).
5
Appeal 2016-000901
Application 12/914,997
However, Appellant argues that Sant’s antenna 326 is not located
“within the single processing volume” because space 334 is separated from
the processing volume by, inter alia, dielectric windows 332 and 432
(Appeal Br. 7—8), Reply Br. 2—3). Appellant’s argument is persuasive.
Sant’s antenna is located outside processing chamber, as demonstrated
by the fact that the processing chamber is operable at low pressure (Sant
120), while the antenna is located in a space at ambient pressure (Sant 124).
In view of the described different pressures in the processing chamber (i.e.
the PECVD chamber) versus the space where the antenna is located coupled
with the depiction of the antenna in space 334 external to the processing
chamber interior regions in Sant’s drawing Figure 3, we find that the
preponderance of the evidence does not support the Examiner’s finding that
Sant’s antenna is “located within the PECVD chamber.” Accordingly, we
reverse each of Rejections I—III.
Rejections IV—VIII. With regards to these rejections, Appellant
argues that the cited art does not teach or otherwise render obvious
“conveyors operable to move substrates into and out of the PECVD chamber
while maintaining the substrates in a vertical orientation” (Reply Br. 4).
However, Appellant does not raise this argument in the Appeal Brief, but
only in the Reply Brief (see, Appeal Br. 4—11; Reply Br. 4). Generally, we
will not consider arguments raised in the Reply Brief for the first time if not
accompanied by a showing of good cause explaining why the argument
could not have been presented in the Appeal Brief. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2);
see also, Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1476—77 (BPAI 2010)
(informative). In this instance, however, Appellant did make the technical
arguments pertinent to these rejections in the Appeal Brief, but only in the
6
Appeal 2016-000901
Application 12/914,997
context of the rejections over Sant in view of Kurata (i.e. without reference
to Saito) (Appeal Br. 8—9). The Examiner, therefore, was able to respond to
the argument in the Answer. Accordingly, we will address this argument on
the merits.
The Examiner finds that neither Saito nor Sant discloses conveyors
operable to move substrates into and out of the PECVD chamber while
maintaining the substrates in a vertical orientation (Final Act. 7). The
Examiner further finds that Kurata teaches an substrate processing apparatus
which comprises a conveying chamber which can change a substrate’s
orientation from vertical to horizontal or vice versa while moving substrates
in an out of processing chambers (Final Act. 8, citing Kurata, FIG. 1, 46—
54, 62, 63). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to
use Kurata’s conveyor to transport substrates into Sant’s processing chamber
in a vertical posture (Final Act. 8).
Appellants argue that Kurata specifically teaches that in its apparatus
the substrates are held in a horizontal orientation in the CVD chamber
(though in a vertical orientation in the sputtering chamber) (Appeal Br. 8).
Therefore, according to Appellent, a person of skill in the art would not look
to Kurata to move substrates into a PECVD chamber in a vertical orientation
(id.).
This argument is not persuasive essentially for the reasons set forth by
the Examiner set forth in the Answer (Ans. 15—19). In particular, Kurata
teaches that its apparatus is capable of moving substrates into a processing
chamber in a vertical orientation (see Kurata 19-25). Thus, in view of the
fact that Saito in combination with Sant teaches a processing chamber in
which the substrate is held in a vertical orientation, it would have been
7
Appeal 2016-000901
Application 12/914,997
obvious to use the conveying system of Kurata to enable transport of the
substrates into the processing chamber while in a vertical orientation. That
Kurata suggests that a horizontal orientation may be preferable in CVD
process does not change this determination. Appellant’s argument is
essentially attacking the Kurata reference individually, and not in the context
of the combination of prior art. Accordingly, we affirm rejections IV-VIIII.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sant in view of Kurata.
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sant in view of Kurata, and further in view of Burger.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Sant in view of Kurata, and further in view of Takagi.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Saito in view of Sant and Kurata.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 2, 3, 10, 13, and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Saito in view of Sant and Kurata,
and further in view of Takagi.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 4, 6, 8, 9, and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Saito in view of Sant and Kurata and
Takagi, and further in view of Setsuhara.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as
unpatentable over Saito in view of Sant and Kurata, and further in view of
Burger.
8
Appeal 2016-000901
Application 12/914,997
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as
unpatentable over Saito in view of Sant and Kurata, Takagi, Setsuhara, and
further in view of Moslehi.
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
9