Ex Parte SANKARAKRISHNAN

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 2018

14522196 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/522,196 10/23/2014 Ramprakash SANKARAKRISHNAN
44257 7590 12/18/2018
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP- -Applied Materials
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
021242/USA 6641
EXAMINER
CROWELL, ANNA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2018 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 RAMPRAKASH SANKARAKRISHNAN
Appeal2018---002971
Application 14/522, 196
Technology Center 1700
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
MICHAEL G. MCMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-17. (Appeal Br. 1.) We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents:
Specification filed October 23, 2014, as amended on December 22, 2014
("Spec."); Final Office Action dated January 13, 2017 ("Final Act."); Appeal
Brief filed September 6, 2017 ("Appeal Br."); Examiner's Answer dated
December 15, 2017 ("Ans."); and Reply Brief filed January 25, 2018
("Reply Br.").
2 Appellant identifies Applied Materials, Inc. as the real party in interest.
( Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal2018---002971
Application 14/522, 196
THE INVENTION
Appellant states that the invention relates to isolators for use in a
plasma processing chamber. (Spec. ,r 2.) In particular, the Specification
describes an inner isolator with arc-shaped pieces, having concave first ends
and convex second ends, where the first end of each piece mates with a
second end of an adjacent piece, and a gap between the separate pieces such
that the pieces are configured to prevent line of sight between the plasm and
chamber body in order to prevent arcing. (Spec. ,r 45.)
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix to the Appeal Brief ( emphasis added):
1. A processing kit for a plasma processing chamber,
compnsmg:
a plurality of ceramic arc-shaped pieces, each arc-shaped piece
having a concave first end and a convex second end, the first end of
each arc-shaped piece configured to mate with an adjacent end of a
neighboring arc-shaped piece with a gap between the first end of the
arc-shaped piece and the adjacent end of the neighboring arc-shaped
piece to form a ring shaped inner isolator, wherein the concave first
end and the convex second end are configured to prevent line-of-sight
across the gap.
(Appeal Br. 15, Claim Appendix.)
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows:
1. Claims 1 and 6-9 as obvious over Sasaki et al. (US 2012/0281334
Al, published on November 8, 2012, "Sasaki"), Szapucki et al.
2
Appeal2018---002971
Application 14/522, 196
(US 6,050,216, issued on April 18, 2000, "Szapucki"), and Wang
et al. (US 6,583,980 Bl, published on June 24, 2003, "Wang");
2. Claims 1, 2, and 6-11 as obvious over Eto et al. (JP 200064051A,
issued February 29, 2000, English Abstract of record, "Eto"),
Szapucki, and Wang; and
3. Claims 3-5 and 12-17 as obvious over Eto, Szapucki, Wang, and
Yamada et al. (US 5,705,019, issued January 6, 1998, "Yamada").
(Final Act. 2-10; Ans. 2.)
Because the same issue is dispositive for all of the obviousness
rejections, we will consider them together. In addition, only a discussion of
claim 1 is necessary for disposition of this appeal, because additional
independent claims 10 and 12 contain similar language with respect to the
claim language at issue.
ISSUE
The Examiner found, inter alia, that Sasaki discloses a processing kit
for a plasma processing chamber including a plurality of ceramic arc-shaped
pieces where the ends of the arc-shaped are configured to mate with an
adjacent end of another arc-shaped piece to from a ring shaped inner
isolator. (Final Act. 2.) The Examiner found that Sasaki is silent as to the
arc-shaped pieces have a concave first end and a convex second end and the
gap between the pieces. (Id. at 3.)
The Examiner found that Szapucki discloses that it is known in the art
for arc shaped pieces to have a concave first end and convex second end in
order to securely mate the pieces together. (Id.) The Examiner found that
3
Appeal2018---002971
Application 14/522, 196
Wang discloses that it is conventional in the art to provide a gap between
ceramic pieces in order to allow for thermal expansion during processing.
(Id.) The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious for the arc-
shaped pieces of Sasaki to have a concave first end and a convex second end
as taught by Szapucki "since it is an alternative means to securely mate the
pieces together." (Id.) The Examiner determined that it would have been
obvious to have provided a gap between the first end of the arc-shaped piece
and the adjacent end of a neighboring arc-shaped piece of Sasaki in view of
Szapucki in order to allow for thermal expansion during processing. (Id.)
The Examiner stated that "the resulting apparatus of Sasaki et al. in view of
Szapucki et al. and Wang et al. would yield ceramic pieces having a concave
first end and the convex second end which are configured to prevent line-of-
sight across the gap." (Id.)
The Examiner found that Eto discloses a processing kit for a plasma
processing chamber including a plurality of ceramic shaped pieces where the
first end of each shaped piece is configured to mate with an adjacent end of a
neighboring shaped piece to form a ring shaped inner isolator. (Final Act.
5.) The Examiner found that Eto was silent as to the ceramic pieces having
an arc shape and the arc-shaped pieces having a concave first end and a
convex second end. (Id.) The Examiner made similar findings with respect
to Szapucki as discussed above, additionally finding that Szapucki discloses
arc-shaped pieces. (Final Act. 5-6.) The Examiner made further findings
and determinations with respect to Szapucki and Wang as discussed above in
determining that the claims would have been obvious over Eto, Szapucki,
and Wang. (Id.)
4
Appeal2018---002971
Application 14/522, 196
Appellant argues that Szapucki and Wang do not teach or suggest
neighboring arc-shaped pieces with a concave first end and a convex second
end configured to prevent line-of-sight across the gap, as recited in Claims 1,
10, and 12. (Appeal Br. 10.) Appellant argues that Eto does not remedy the
deficiencies of Sasaki, Szapucki, and Wang. (Id at 11.)
The dispositive issue is: Has Appellant identified reversible error in
the Examiner's rationale that it would have been obvious to have modified
the plurality of ceramic shaped pieces disclosed in Sasaki or Eto in view of
Szapucki and Wang to form arc-shaped pieces with a concave first end and a
convex second end configured to prevent line-of-sight across the gap?
DISCUSSION
We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner has not
provided sufficient reasoning that the combination of Sasaki, Szapucki, and
Wang would result in arc-shaped pieces having the configuration recited in
the claims. As discussed above, the Examiner relies solely on Figure 5 of
Szapucki for the disclosure of arc-shaped pieces having a concave first end
and a convex second end as a basis for finding that concave and convex
mating ends are well-known in the art. 3 (Final Act. 3, 5.)
3 In this regard the Examiner expressly cites "Figure 5, lines 1-26" in
supporting this finding. (Final Act. 3, 5.) The reference to "lines 1-26"
with respect to Figure 5 is unclear. Even if we assume the Examiner to be
referring to column 6, lines 1-26, which discusses Figure 5, we are unable to
locate a disclosure in that section that refers to the ends of the arc-shaped
pieces being concave and convex.
5
Appeal2018---002971
Application 14/522, 196
Figure 5 of Szapucki is reproduced below:
46
22b
15·
40 44
"'·
\
I I
36/ 44
FIG. 5
1'
3
Figure 5 is an exploded assembly view of a showerhead electrode
assembly. (Szapucki, col. 4, 11. 39--43.) It appears that the Examiner is
relying on the shape of the ends of the arc-shaped pieces located above the
notch (32) and tab (30) for the concave end and convex end, respectively.
Even assuming that Szapucki discloses a concave first end and a convex
second end of the arc-shaped pieces as depicted in Figure 5, we agree with
Appellant that there is an insufficient basis to support the position that when
combined with Wang's disclosure of a gap, the concave first end and convex
second end would be "configured to prevent line-of-sight across the gap." In
other words, there is insufficient support that the extent of the convex and
concave shapes, combined with the size of the gap, would be sufficient to
prevent line-of-sight across the gap. In this regard, the Examiner does not
provide sufficient rationale to support the position that combining the
6
Appeal2018---002971
Application 14/522, 196
references to achieve this configuration would have necessarily resulted or
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Because all of the rejections on appeal rely on Szapucki and Wang for
the arc-shaped pieces with a concave first end and a convex second end
configured to prevent line-of-sight across the gap, we reverse the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1-17.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-17.
REVERSED
7