Jennifer Sun et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 18, 2020

13988656 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2020)

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.
13/988,656 05/21/2013 Jennifer Y. Sun 15756USP 1028
44257 7590 08/18/2020
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPLIED MATERIALS
24 GREENWAY PLAZA
SUITE 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
EXAMINER
WATKINS III, WILLIAM P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1783
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/18/2020 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 JENNIFER Y. SUN and SUMANTH BANDA

Appeal 2019-005593
Application 13/988,656
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Primary
Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 9–11, 14, and 16–19.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42—i.e., the Inventors (Application Data Sheet filed May 21,
2013 at 1). The Appellant identifies “Applied Materials, Inc.” as the real
party in interest (Appeal Brief filed January 28, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”) at 3).
2 See Appeal Br. 10–11; Reply Brief filed July 9, 2019 (“Reply Br.”) at 2–3;
Final Office Action entered July 13, 2018 (“Final Act.”) at 2–5; Advisory
Action entered October 19, 2018 (“Adv. Act.”) at 1–4; Examiner’s Answer
entered May 16, 2019 (“Ans.”) at 3–4.
Appeal 2019-005593
Application 13/988,656

2
I. BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a semiconductor process
chamber component in which first and second surfaces are joined by an
adhesive material having a Young’s modulus lower than 300 psi
(Specification filed May 21, 2013 (“Spec.”) ¶¶ 5–6). Representative claim 9
is reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief, as follows:
9. A semiconductor chamber component, comprising:
a first surface disposed adjacent a second surface, wherein
the first surface is a gas distribution plate and the second surface
is a base plate; and
an adhesive material coupling the first surface to the
second surface, wherein the adhesive material has a Young’s
modulus lower than 300 psi, wherein the adhesive material is a
disk shape perforated sheet having an elongation greater than
150 percent, wherein the perforated sheet includes a plurality of
pre-formed apertures which are located to align with apertures of
the gas distribution plate and apertures of the base plate, wherein
the adhesive material is fabricated from a material selected from
the group consisting of acrylic and silicone based compounds,
wherein the perforated sheet comprises apertures in a grid, polar
array or radial pattern.
(Appeal Br. 13 (emphases added)).
II. REJECTION ON APPEAL
On appeal, claims 9–11, 14, and 16–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Fujii,3 Gaynes et al.4 (“Gaynes”), and Kanno
et al.5 (“Kanno”) (Ans. 3–4; Adv. Act. 1–4 (entering an Amendment filed

3 US 6,831,307 B2, issued December 14, 2004.
4 US 2003/0128518 A1, published July 10, 2003.
5 US 2006/0291132 A1, published December 28, 2006.
Appeal 2019-005593
Application 13/988,656

3
September 24, 2018, in which, inter alia, claim 9 was revised and claim 12
was canceled); Final Act. 2–5).6
III. DISCUSSION
1. Grouping of Claims
The Appellant argues claims 9–11, 14, and 16–19 together under a
single heading (Appeal Br. 10–11). Therefore, we decide this appeal on the
basis of claim 9, which we designate as representative pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claims 10, 11, 14, and 16–19 stand or fall with claim 9.
2. The Examiner’s Position
The Examiner finds that Fujii describes a semiconductor processing
chamber in which an adhesive layer with a Young’s modulus of less than
100 MPa and an elongation of not lower than 100 percent is used to join a
metal layer to a ceramic layer, wherein a hole in the adhesive layer has a
diameter that is substantially similar to the diameters in the holes in the
metal and ceramic layers (Final Act. 4). The Examiner relies on Gaynes to
establish that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to
use a silicone-based adhesive in Fujii to reduce thermal distortion (Final Act.
4). The Examiner acknowledges that Fujii, as modified in view of Gaynes,
does not disclose an adhesive layer that has apertures or holes in “a grid,
polar array or radial pattern,” as recited in claim 9, but relies on Kanno’s
Figure 11 for this limitation (Ans. 4; Final Act. 4–5). Specifically, the
Examiner concludes that “[i]t . . . would have been obvious to have placed

6 In the Final Action (Final Act. 2–3), the claims were also rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, as lacking enablement. That rejection is not before us
because it has been withdrawn (Ans. 3).
Appeal 2019-005593
Application 13/988,656

4
the cooling holes of Fujii in view of Gaynes . . . in a radial pattern in order to
insure good gas flow because of the teachings of Kanno” (Final Act. 5).
3. The Appellant’s Contentions
The Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s articulated reason for
combining Fujii and Gaynes—i.e., that a person having ordinary skill in the
art would have been prompted to substitute Fujii’s acrylic adhesive, which
falls within the scope of claim 9, with Gaynes’s silicone adhesive, which
also falls within the scope of claim 9 (Appeal Br. 10). Rather, the Appellant
contends that: Fujii’s adhesive sheet does not have apertures aligned with
apertures from a gas distribution plate and apertures of a base plate in the
manner as required by claim 9; and neither Gaynes nor Kanno makes up for
this alleged deficiency in Fujii (id. at 10–11). Specifically, the Appellant
argues that Fujii does not have apertures in a “grid, polar array or radial
pattern” (id. at 10) and that Fujii’s adhesive sheet is used in a substrate
support assembly (i.e., an electrostatic chuck (ESC) used to support a
substrate)—not between “a gas distribution plate” (made of, e.g., ceramic as
specified in dependent claim 11) and “a base plate” (made of, e.g., metallic
material as specified in dependent claim 11) (id.).
4. Opinion
The Appellant’s arguments fail to identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
As the Examiner correctly finds (Final Act. 4; Ans. 4), Fujii describes
a semiconductor processing system (e.g., CVD system), which would
necessarily include a processing chamber, comprising, inter alia, an
electrostatic chuck (semiconductor mounting member 1) including a ceramic
substrate 2 that is joined to a metal member 7 via an adhesive sheet 4
Appeal 2019-005593
Application 13/988,656

5
(preferably based on a flexible acrylic or epoxy resin) having a Young’s
modulus of less than 100 MPa and an elongation not lower than (i.e., equal
to or greater than) 100 percent, more preferably not lower than 150 percent
(Fujii col. 2, ll. 3–8; col. 3, l. 28–col. 4, l. 18; Fig. 3). Fujii discloses a first
gas supply hole 18a in the ceramic substrate 2, a second gas supply hole 18b
in the metal member 7, and a hole having the same or similar diameter as
18a, 18b in adhesive sheet 4 in order to supply back side gas through the
metal member 7 for cooling the semiconductor wafer that would be mounted
on adsorption face 2a of the ceramic substrate 2 (id. at col. 3, ll. 39–47; Fig
3).
Thus, contrary to the Appellant’s belief, the limitations “gas
distribution plate” and “base plate” in claim 9, which may be made from a
ceramic and metal, respectively (claim 11), fail to distinguish the claimed
subject matter over Fujii’s ceramic substrate 2 and metal member 7, which is
also designed to supply or distribute cooling gas. That is, we have not been
directed to any language in claim 9 that would preclude the specified “gas
distribution plate” and “base plate” from being parts of an electrostatic
chuck assembly as in Fujii. See In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369
(Fed. Cir. 1998) (The “name of the game is the claim” and unclaimed
features cannot impart patentability to claims); In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344,
1348 (CCPA 1982) (“[The A]ppellant’s arguments fail from the outset
because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.”).
Although the Appellant is correct that Fujii does not disclose the
adhesive sheet 4 as having “apertures in a grid, polar array or radial pattern,”
as recited in claim 9, we discern no reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that Kanno would have provided the requisite motivation or
Appeal 2019-005593
Application 13/988,656

6
suggestion for a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide “apertures
in a grid, polar array or radial pattern” in Fujii’s system. Specifically,
Kanno teaches providing through holes 30 both in the center of an
electrostatic chuck 8 and near the outer circumference thereof to introduce
cooling gas 18 (Kanno ¶ 32; Fig. 11). Kanno states:
As a result of this, an unnecessary temperature rise of the wafer
is suppressed by ensuring the thermal conductivity between the
wafer and the ceramics film. Incidentally, though not described
in detail in this embodiment, the groove pattern of the surface of
the electrostatic chuck 8 is optimized so that the helium gas
introduced from the center spread thoroughly to the outer
circumference of the wafer while minimizing pressure losses.
Hence, Kanno would have provided ample motivation for a person
having ordinary skill in the art to modify Fujii in the manner claimed by the
Appellant to suppress any unnecessary temperature rise of the wafer and to
optimize the distribution of the cooling gas thoroughly to the outer
circumference of the wafer while minimizing pressure losses. KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[I]f a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”).
The Appellant’s arguments directed to Gaynes and Kanno amount to
an attack against these references individually rather than an argument based
on what the collective teachings in all three references would have suggested
to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, they are ineffective.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[O]ne cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references.”).
Appeal 2019-005593
Application 13/988,656

7
For these reasons, and those well-stated by the Examiner, we uphold
the Examiner’s rejection.

IV. CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
9–11, 14,
16–19
103(a) Fujii, Gaynes, Kanno 9–11, 14,
16–19

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