Ex Parte Ranish

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2017

13785539 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 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.
13/785,539 03/05/2013 Joseph M. Ranish 016898/FEP/EPI/PJT 4191
44257 7590 11/01/2017
PATTFRSON & SHFRTDAN T T P - - AnnlieH Materials EXAMINER
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
KENDALL, BENJAMIN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1718
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2017 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 JOSEPH M. RANISH1
Appeal 2017-003919
Application 13/785,539
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CHUNG K. PAK, and
MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL2
Appellant appeals the Examiner’s decision to finally reject claims 1,
3, 6—11, 13—15, 18, and 19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant identifies Applied Materials, Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
2 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed March 5, 2013
(“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated June 10, 2016 (“Final Act.”); Advisory
Action dated September 21, 2016 (“Adv. Act.”); Appeal Brief dated October
31, 2016 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer to the Appeal Brief dated
January 3, 2017 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief dated January 11, 2017 (“Reply
Br.”).
Appeal 2017-003919
Application 13/785,539
The Claimed Invention
Appellant’s disclosure relates to an apparatus for heating substrates,
such as semiconductor substrates. Spec. H 2, 5; Abstract. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below
from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 11) (key disputed
claim language italicized and bolded):
1. A process chamber, comprising:
a chamber body including an optically transparent dome;
a substrate support disposed within the chamber body;
a plurality of lamps disposed adjacent to the optically
transparent dome; and
a light focusing assembly positioned within the chamber
body between the plurality of lamps and a substrate positioned
on the substrate support, the light focusing assembly adapted to
influence radiant energy emitted from the plurality of lamps,
wherein:
the light focusing assembly comprises a plurality of
concentric rings or polygonal approximations to rings, the
concentric rings or the polygonal approximations to rings
comprising quartz; and
the concentric rings or the polygonal approximations
to rings contain a hollow cavity therein, and interior walls of
the hollow cavity having a reflective coating thereon.
The References
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Okase et al., US 5,662,469 Sept. 2, 1997
(hereinafter “Okase”)
Shao et al., US 2002/0030047 Al Mar. 14, 2002
(hereinafter “Shao”)
2
Appeal 2017-003919
Application 13/785,539
Ueno et al.,
(hereinafter “Ueno”)
Merry et al.,
(hereinafter “Merry”)
US 2009/0291566 Al Nov. 26, 2009
US 2010/0111511 Al May 6, 2010
The Rejections
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1,3, 6—8, 10, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Merry in view of Shao and
Ueno (“Rejection 1”). Ans. 2; Final Act. 2.
2. Claims 9, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Merry in view of Shao as applied to
claims 1,3, 6—8, 10, 11, 13, and 14 above, and further in view of Okase
(“Rejection 2”). Ans. 11; Final Act. 11.
Rejection 1
The Examiner determines that the combination of Merry, Shao, and
Ueno suggests a process chamber satisfying all of the limitations of claim 1
and concludes the combination would have rendered the claim obvious.
Ans. 2—5.
Regarding the “concentric rings or the polygonal approximations to
rings contain a hollow cavity therein, and interior walls of the hollow cavity
having a reflective coating thereon” limitation of claim 1, the Examiner
relies on the Merry and Shao references. Ans. 3,14. In particular, the
Examiner finds that Merry teaches a light focusing assembly (lower reflector
assembly 131) comprising a plurality of concentric rings or polygonal
OPINION
3
Appeal 2017-003919
Application 13/785,539
approximations to rings (vertical reflecting walls 146). Id. at 3, 14 (citing
Merry, Fig. 1,121).
The Examiner further finds that Shao teaches a light focusing
assembly (reinforcing members 124) containing a hollow cavity therein
(cooling pipes 125) and the walls of the hollow cavity having a reflective
coating (gold plating) thereon. Ans. 3, 14 (citing Shao, Fig. 19, Tflf 150,
154).
Based on the above findings, the Examiner concludes that
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time
of the invention to modify the rings of Merry to include a
reflective coating (metal film) thereon, as in Shao, to decrease
the rate of energy loss.
Ans. 14 (citing Shao, Fig. 19,1154).
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection should be reversed
because “the combination of references fails to teach or suggest the
concentric rings or the polygonal approximations to rings containing a
hollow cavity therein, or interior walls of the hollow cavity having a
reflective coating thereon.” Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 2.
Appellant’s argument is persuasive because the Examiner has not
established by a preponderance of the evidence that the cited art teaches or
suggests “concentric rings or the polygonal approximations to rings
containing a hollow cavity therein, and interior walls of the hollow cavity
having a reflective coating thereon,” as required by claim 1. In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (holding that the examiner bears the
initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness).
Regarding the “concentric rings or the polygonal approximations to
rings containing a hollow cavity therein, and interior walls of the hollow
4
Appeal 2017-003919
Application 13/785,539
cavity having a reflective coating thereon” recitation of claim 1, the
Specification discloses that the optical assembly comprises a plurality of
concentric rings, each concentric ring has a hollow cavity therein, and a
reflective material is disposed within the hollow cavities of the concentric
rings. Spec. 1 8. The Specification further discloses:
The rings 251A—251F are hollow rings or dewars formed from
quartz or other optically transparent material and have a
reflective material disposed on internal surfaces 260 of a hollow
cavity formed therein.
Id. 130; see also Fig. 2A of the Spec, (identifying hollow rings 251A—
251F).
The Examiner does not adequately discuss or identify sufficient
evidence in the record that the combination of Merry, Shao, and Ueno
teaches or suggests this limitation.
As Appellant correctly points out (App. Br. 7—8), although Merry
discloses a lower reflector assembly 131 comprising a plurality of concentric
vertical reflecting walls 146 (Merry 121, Fig. 1), the reference neither
teaches nor suggests the vertical reflector walls 146 having a hollow cavity
therein or a reflective material being disposed on the internal surface of a
hollow cavity formed therein.
As the Appellant further explains (App. Br. 7—8), although Shao
discloses a quartz window 120A having reinforcing members 124 and
includes cooling pipes 125 that may be hollow, the cooling pipes 125 are
disposed within the reinforcing members 124 and the gold plating is actually
applied to the exterior walls of the reinforcing members 124, and not to the
interior walls of cooling pipes 125. Shao Tflf 150, 153, 154, Fig. 19. There
5
Appeal 2017-003919
Application 13/785,539
is no teaching or suggestion of a reflective material being disposed on the
internal surface of cooling pipes 125.
The Examiner also does not identify or provide an adequate technical
explanation explaining why one of ordinary skill would have had reason to
modify Merry’s vertical reflecting walls 146 in the manner claimed.
The fact that Merry discloses a plurality of vertical reflecting walls
146 that are “concentric with one another” (Merry 121) and Shao discloses
that gold plating may be applied to the exterior surfaces of reinforcing
members 124 (Shao 1154), without more, does not persuade us that one of
ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Merry’s lower reflector
assembly to arrive at the claimed invention. See KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (requiring “reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”) (quoting In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
We, therefore, cannot sustain the Examiner’s determination that the
combination of Merry, Shao, and Ueno teaches or suggests all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Because claims 3, 6—8, 10, 11, and 13 depend from claim 1 and claim
14 recites the same “concentric rings or the polygonal approximations to
rings contain a hollow cavity therein, and interior walls of the hollow cavity
having a reflective coating thereon” limitation as claim 1, we also cannot
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,3, 6—8,
10, 11, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination
of Merry, Shao, and Ueno.
6
Appeal 2017-003919
Application 13/785,539
Rejection 2
The foregoing deficiencies in the Examiner’s analysis and conclusion
regarding the combination of Merry and Shao are not remedied by the
Examiner’s findings regarding the additional reference or combination of
references cited in support of the second ground of rejection.
Accordingly, we also reverse the Examiner’s Rejection 2.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3, 6—11, 13—15, 18, and 19 are
reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
7