Ex Parte Sun et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2016

12640496 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/640,496 12/17/2009
55649 7590 08/01/2016
Moser Taboada I Applied Materials, Inc.
1030 Broad Street
Suite 203
Shrewsbury, NJ 07702
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jennifer Y. Sun
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.
14147/ETCH/CHMBR 8863
EXAMINER
SALONE, BAY AN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3726
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2016 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):
ataboada@mtiplaw.com
docketing@mtiplaw.com
llinardakis@mtiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte JENNIFER Y. SUN, SENH THACH, and
REN-GUAN DUAN
Appeal2014-008383
Application 12/640,496
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jennifer Y. Sun et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6-15, 17-24, and 26,
which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-008383
Application 12/640,496
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' claimed subject matter relates to "substrate process
equipment." Spec. para. 2. Claims 1, 14, and 26 are independent. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A substrate support, comprising:
a base;
an adhesive layer comprising a matrix of silicon-based
polymeric material having a filler dispersed therein, wherein the
matrix is formed of a silicon-based polymeric material having a
molecular weight with a low molecular weight (LMW) content
L D3 - D 10 of less than about 500 ppm; and
an electrostatic chuck disposed atop the base and the
adhesive layer, wherein the adhesive layer bonds the base and the
electrostatic chuck.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied upon the following evidence:
Blizzard
Stewart, Jr.
Kley er
Hansen
Nishimoto
Gilleo
Mahon
us 4,591,622
us 4,950,563
US 6,534,581 Bl
US 6,642,304 Bl
US 2005/0042881 Al
US 6,936,644 B2
US 7,045,014 B2
REJECTIONS
May 27, 1986
Aug. 21, 1990
Mar. 18, 2003
Nov. 4, 2003
Feb.24,2005
Aug. 30, 2005
May 16, 2006
Appellants appeal from the Final Action, dated June 13, 2013, which
includes the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 14, 15, 20-22, 24, and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Nishimoto and Blizzard. 1
1 Although the Examiner's statement of this ground of rejection on page 2 of
2
Appeal2014-008383
Application 12/640,496
2. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Nishimoto, Blizzard, and Mahon.
3. Claims 11 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Nishimoto, Blizzard, and Kleyer.
4. Claims 11, 12, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nishimoto, Blizzard, and Hansen.
5. Claims 13 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Nishimoto, Blizzard, Hansen, and Gilleo.
6. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Nishimoto, Blizzard, and Stewart, Jr.
ANALYSIS
First Ground of Rejection: Obviousness based on Nishimoto and Blizzard
The Examiner determined:
It ,~1ould have been obvious to one of ordinaf'J skill in the art at
the time of invention to utilize a silicon based polymeric material
having a filler dispersed therein; wherein the matrix is formed of
a silicon-based polymeric material having a molecular weight as
disclosed by Blizzard with the invention of Nishimoto for the
benefit of providing a pressure sensitive silicon based polymeric
material having strong bonding capabilities to securely bond the
substrate support to the ESC.
Final Act. 3. Appellants argue that Blizzard is not analogous art. Appeal
Br. 6-7. In particular, Appellants assert that Blizzard is not in the field of
Appellants' endeavor (i.e., semiconductor processes), because "Blizzard
the Answer and on page 2 of the Final Action omits claim 26, the
Examiner's detailed explanation of the rejection includes analysis of claim
26. Ans. 2-3; Final Act. 2. As such, we understand claim 26 to be included
in this ground of rejection.
3
Appeal2014-008383
Application 12/640,496
teaches a silicone pressure-sensitive adhesive mixture having multiple
components for use in the manufacture of pressure-sensitive adhesive tapes,
as pressure-sensitive adhesives for seaming fabrics, or the like." Id. at 7.
Appellants also argue that, "although pertinent to some aspect of the stated
problem (coupling two components), the solution in Blizzard is not pertinent
to the entire problem being solved (bonding an electrostatic chuck to a metal
support in a semiconductor processing apparatus)." Id. According to
Appellants, Blizzard's "teachings would not have logically commended
itself to an inventor seeking to bond an electrostatic chuck to a metal support
in a semiconductor processing apparatus." Id. The Examiner responds that
"both Nishimoto and Blizzard relate to adhesive bonding agents and[/]or
materials." Ans. 12 (emphasis omitted).
"The analogous-art test requires that the Board show that a reference
is either in the field of the applicant's endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to
the problem with which the inventor was concerned in order to rely on that
reference as a basis for rejection." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986-87 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). The
"field of endeavor" prong asks if the structure and function of the prior art is
such that it would be considered by a person of ordinary skill in the art
because of the similarity to the structure and function of the claimed
invention as disclosed in the application. In re Bigio, 381F.3d1320, 1325-
27 (Fed. Cir. 2004). "A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it
may be in a different field from that of the inventor's endeavor, it is one
which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have
4
Appeal2014-008383
Application 12/640,496
commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his
problem." In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Blizzard relates to pressure-sensitive silicone adhesives having
improved solution viscosity and physical property stability upon aging.
Blizzard col. 1, 11. 6-12. Blizzard discloses that the "[s]ilicone pressure-
sensitive adhesive compositions of the present invention can find use in
applications where such adhesives have been used in the past such as in the
manufacture of pressure-sensitive adhesive tapes, as pressure-sensitive
adhesives for seaming fabrics," and as a skin contact adhesive for
transdermal drug delivery devices. Id. at col. 14, 11. 33-38, 52-58.
According to Blizzard, "[t]he stability of the adhesives ... make them
particularly desirable for use on tapes because the tack and adhesion
properties remain reasonably constant with aging." Id. at 11. 40--43.
Additionally, the "[ s ]ilicone pressure-sensitive adhesives are very desirable
for body contact use because they are permeable, moisture-resistant and are
essentially hypoallergenic and non-irritating to the skin." Id. at 11. 54-57.
Appellants' Specification "relates to substrate process equipment" for
semiconductor processes. Spec. para. 2; see id. at para. 16 (describing the
substrate support in a semiconductor process chamber). In particular, the
invention is directed to "[ m ]ethods and apparatus for bonding an
electrostatic chuck [ (ESC)] to a component of a substrate support." Id. at
para. 6. The Specification describes that semiconductor fabrication
processes involve high temperatures and that "conventional adhesive layers
typically utilized to bond the ESC can become degraded by the higher
temperature processes and may cause the ESC to delaminate from the
5
Appeal2014-008383
Application 12/640,496
component to which it is bonded." Id. at para. 3. The delamination caused
by higher temperature processes "may cause process uniformity issues as
well as particle contamination from pieces of the adhesive layer." Id.
Additionally, "many processes being utilized or developed to fabricate
smaller feature size devices also utilize increased RF power, which can
further exacerbate the above-noted temperature problem and may also erode
the adhesive layer." Id. at para. 4.
We agree with Appellants that Blizzard, which relates to the field of
pressure-sensitive adhesives, is not from the same field of endeavor as
Appellants' claimed subject matter, which relates to the field of
semiconductor process equipment. Although both Blizzard and Appellants'
claimed subject matter disclose adhesives, Blizzard's pressure-sensitive
adhesive is designed to adhere tapes, fabrics, and transdermal medical
devices, whereas the adhesive described and claimed in Appellants'
application is designed to bond an ESC and a support component in high
temperature semiconductor processes. This distinction in the function of the
adhesives evinces that the Examiner's characterization of the field of
Appellants' endeavor as relating generally to "adhesive bonding agents
and[/] or materials" is too broad. The function of Blizzard's pressures-
sensitive silicone adhesive is not sufficiently similar to the function of the
adhesive layer of the claimed semiconductor ESC support substrate such that
it would be considered by a person of ordinary skill to be in the field of
semiconductor processes. As such, we disagree with the Examiner's finding
that Blizzard is from Appellants' field of endeavor.
6
Appeal2014-008383
Application 12/640,496
To the extent the Examiner's finding that Blizzard is analogous art is
based on a determination that Blizzard is reasonably pertinent to the problem
facing Appellants, we also disagree. The problem facing Appellants was the
degradation and delamination of the adhesive bond between an ESC and a
support component caused by high temperature semiconductor process
environments. The Examiner has not presented sufficient evidence to show
that a person of ordinary skill in the art seeking an adhesive that withstands
high temperature semiconductor process environments would look to
Blizzard's pressure-sensitive adhesive used in tapes, fabric seaming, and
transdermal drug delivery. In other words, we find insufficient evidence to
support a finding that a disclosure for a pressure-sensitive adhesive used in
tapes, fabric seaming, and transdermal drug delivery would have logically
commended itself to Appellants' attention in considering the problem of
adhesive degradation and delamination of the adhesive bond between an
ESC and a support component in high temperature semiconductor process
environments.
Accordingly, we find that Blizzard is not analogous aii. For this
reason, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1,
14, and 26, and of claims 2, 4, 6-10, 15, 20-22, and 24 depending
therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nishimoto and
Blizzard.
7
Appeal2014-008383
Application 12/640,496
Second through Sixth Grounds of Rejection: Obviousness based on
Nishimoto, Blizzard, and one of Mahon, Kleyer, Hansen, Gilleo, and
Stewart, Jr.
The rejections of dependent claims 3, 11-13, 17-19, and 23 rely on
the same proposed combination of Nishimoto and Blizzard that we find
deficient for the reasons stated above. See Final Act. 7-10. The Exarniner
did not make any findings as to the scope and content of the additional
references relied on in the rejection of these dependent claims, i.e., Mahon,
Kleyer, Hansen, Gilleo, and Stewart, Jr., that would cure the deficiency in
the underlying combination of Nishimoto and Blizzard. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 3,
11-13, 17-19, and 23.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1--4, 6-15, 17-24, and
26 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
8