Joseph Yudovsky et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 31, 2020

14546078 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 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.
14/546,078 11/18/2014 Joseph Yudovsky 021263USA 1019
67251 7590 01/31/2020
SERVILLA WHITNEY LLC/AMT
33 WOOD AVE SOUTH
SUITE 830
ISELIN, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
MOORE, KARLA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2020 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):
docket@dsiplaw.com
hservilla@dsiplaw.com
lmurphy@dsiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH YUDOVSKY and KEVIN GRIFFIN
Appeal 2019-002366
Application 14/546,078
Technology Center 1700
Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10 and 14–16.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Applied Materials,
Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Pending claims 11 and 17–20 have been withdrawn from consideration and
are not before us on appeal.
Appeal 2019-002366
Application 14/546,078

2
We AFFIRM.3
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to a batch processing platform for performing
atomic layer deposition (“ALD”) and chemical vapor deposition (“CVD”)
on substrates. Spec. ¶ 2. The claims are directed to a processing chamber
comprising a gas distribution assembly, a susceptor assembly, and a diverter,
wherein the diverter is positioned to change the flow of reactive gas so as to
contact a surface of a substrate on the susceptor assembly at an angle of less
than about 90˚ relative to the substrate surface. Id. ¶ 7.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A processing chamber comprising:
a circular gas distribution assembly positioned within the
processing chamber, the gas distribution assembly comprising a
plurality of elongate pie-shaped gas ports in a front face of the
gas distribution assembly, the plurality of elongate pie-shaped
gas ports extending from an inner diameter region to an outer
diameter region of the gas distribution assembly so that a width
of the elongate gas ports at the outer diameter region is greater
than a width of the elongate gas ports at the inner diameter
region, the plurality of gas ports comprising a reactive gas port
to deliver a reactive gas to the processing chamber, a purge gas
port to deliver a purge gas to the processing chamber and a
vacuum port to evacuate gases from the processing chamber;
a susceptor assembly within the processing chamber to
rotate at least one substrate in a substantially circular path about
a rotational axis, the susceptor assembly having a top surface

3 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed November 18,
2014, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated December 3, 2018, and
Appellant’s Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed January 28, 2019.

Appeal 2019-002366
Application 14/546,078

3
defined by an inner peripheral edge and an outer peripheral
edge, the susceptor assembly positioned below the gas
distribution assembly so that the top surface of the susceptor
assembly faces the front face of the gas distribution assembly,
the susceptor assembly spaced from the gas distribution
assembly such that flows of gases from the reactive gas port
and the purge gas port exit the gas port, flow around a partition
formed by the gas distribution assembly and into the vacuum
ports;
a diverter positioned approximately coplanar with the
front face of the gas distribution assembly, the diverter having a
plurality of angled apertures therethrough to change a direction
of a flow of gas passing through the diverter so that when a
substrate is on the susceptor assembly, the gas exiting the
diverter is directed toward the top surface of the susceptor
assembly at an angle of less than 90° relative to the top surface
of the susceptor assembly; and
a plurality of actuators around an outer periphery of the
susceptor assembly, the actuators configured to apply pressure
to the susceptor assembly to level the susceptor assembly so
that the susceptor assembly is substantially parallel to the gas
distribution assembly.
Independent claim 16 recites a processing chamber similar to that of
claim 1, wherein the reactive gas contacts the substrate surface at an angle in
the range of about 70˚ to about 89˚ relative to the substrate surface in a
direction opposite of rotation of the susceptor assembly and toward an inner
peripheral edge of the susceptor assembly, and further including a diverter
controller to control one or more of the direction and the angle of the
reactive gas flow.
Appeal 2019-002366
Application 14/546,078

4
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Kurita et al. (“Kurita”) US 2006/0054090 A1 Mar. 16, 2006
Kato et al. (“Kato1”) US 2010/0132614 A1 June 3, 2010
Park et al. (“Park”) US 2010/0190341 A1 July 29, 2010
Kato et al. (“Kato2”) US 2011/0139074 A1 June 16, 2011
Yudovsky (“Yudovsky1”) US 2012/0225195 A1 Sept. 6, 2012
Yudovsky (“Yudovsky2”) US 2013/0210238 A1 Aug. 15, 2013

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains, and Appellant requests our review of, the
following grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
1. Claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 14, and 15 as unpatentable over Park in view
of Kato1, Yudovsky1, Kurita, and Yudovsky2;
2. Claims 2, 3, and 6–9 as unpatentable over Park in view of
Kato1, Yudovsky1, Kurita, and Yudovsky2, and further in view of
Kato2; and
3. Claim 16 as unpatentable over Park in view of Kato1,
Yudovsky1, Kato2, Kurita, and Yudovsky2.

OPINION
After review of the Examiner’s and Appellant’s opposing positions
and the appeal record before us, we determine that Appellant’s arguments
are insufficient to identify reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly,
we affirm the stated rejections for substantially the fact findings and the
Appeal 2019-002366
Application 14/546,078

5
reasons the Examiner sets forth in the Examiner’s Answer. We provide the
following for emphasis only.
Rejections 1 and 3
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 5, 10, and 14–16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Park in view of Kato1, Yudovsky1, Kurita, and
Yudovsky2. Ans. 3–7, 8–13. Although Appellant separately argues
independent claims 1 and 16, these arguments are substantively the same.
Compare Appeal Br. 12–19, with id. at 23–31. Appellant also asserts that
neither Park nor any of the secondary references teaches or suggests the
features recited in claims 4, 5, 10, 14, and 15. Id. at 19–20. However, these
“separate” arguments amount to no more than a recitation of the additional
limitations of the dependent claims and a generic denial that the applied
references teach or suggest the additional limitations. We, and our reviewing
court, have long held that such argument does not merit separate
consideration. See, In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e
hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more
substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not
found in the prior art.”). In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv),
claims 4, 5, 10, 14–16 stand or fall with claim 1, which we select as
representative.
The Examiner finds that Park discloses processing chamber 140
substantially as claimed, including circular gas distribution assembly 130
positioned within the processing chamber, susceptor assembly 120 within
the processing chamber positioned below the gas distribution assembly to
rotate at least one substrate in a substantially circular path, and diverter 220
Appeal 2019-002366
Application 14/546,078

6
positioned approximately coplanar with a front face of the gas distribution
assembly. Ans. 3. The Examiner further finds that the gas distribution
assembly comprises a plurality of elongate gas ports 210, 150a–d in a front
face thereof extending from an inner diameter region to an outer diameter
region of the assembly, the plurality of gas ports including reactive gas port
150a to deliver reactive gas to the processing chamber and purge gas port
150d to deliver purge gas to the processing chamber. Id. In addition, the
Examiner finds that Park’s diverter has a plurality of angled apertures
therethrough to allow a flow of gas to pass through the diverter, wherein the
diverter is positioned at the front face of the gas distribution assembly to
change a direction of flow of the reactive gas so as to contact a surface of the
substrate at an angle of approximately 90˚. Id. at 3–4. The Examiner
acknowledges that Park fails to disclose that the gas exiting the diverter is
directed toward the top surface of the susceptor assembly at an angle of less
than 90˚ relative to the top surface of the susceptor assembly. Ans. 4. For
this feature, the Examiner finds that Kato1 discloses diverter 531 and
diverter controller 525 to adjust the inclination of the diverter relative to a
horizontal axis, so that the amount of reactant gas supplied from the diverter
and adsorbed by a substrate may be adjusted. Id. Therefore, the Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to provide Park with a diverter
controller to adjust the inclination of the diverter in order to adjust the
amount of reactant gas supplied from the diverter and adsorbed by the
substrate as Kato1 teaches. Id. Further, the Examiner finds that while Kato1
does not disclose a specific angle of inclination for the diverter or a
corresponding contact angle of the gas flow, Kato1’s adjustment necessarily
permits the contact angle to be adjusted to less than 90˚. Id.
Appeal 2019-002366
Application 14/546,078

7
The Examiner further acknowledges that Park fails to teach that the
plurality of gas ports include vacuum ports to evacuate gases from the
processing chamber, but finds, without dispute, that Yudovsky1 teaches a
gas distribution assembly in a processing chamber including vacuum ports
intermingled with reactive and purge gas ports for the purpose of
transmitting gases delivered by the reactive and purge gas ports out of the
processing chamber, wherein flows of gas from the reactive and purge gas
ports exit from the gas distribution assembly and flow around a partition into
the vacuum ports. Ans. 4–5. Therefore, the Examiner concludes, without
dispute, that it would have been obvious to provide vacuum ports
intermingled with the reactive and purge gas ports of Park’s gas distribution
assembly such that gas flows from the reactive and purge gas ports, around a
partition and into the vacuum ports as Yudovsky1 teaches. Id. at 5.
The Examiner also acknowledges that Park fails to disclose a
plurality of actuators around an outer periphery of the susceptor assembly so
as to level the susceptor assembly to be substantially parallel to the gas
distribution assembly. Ans. 5. The Examiner finds Kurita discloses a
plurality of actuators around an outer periphery of a susceptor assembly and
configured to level the susceptor assembly to be substantially parallel to the
gas distribution assembly for promoting even and uniform processing. Id.
Therefore, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
provide a plurality of actuators around the outer periphery of Park’s
susceptor assembly configured to level the susceptor assembly so that it is
substantially parallel to the gas distribution assembly in order to promote
even and uniform processing as Kurita teaches. Id. at 6.
Appeal 2019-002366
Application 14/546,078

8
Finally, the Examiner acknowledges that Park fails to teach that the
plurality of elongate gas ports are pie-shaped, i.e., the width of the gas ports
at the outer diameter region is greater than the width of the gas ports at the
inner diameter region, but finds, without dispute, that Yudovsky2 teaches the
use of elongate pie-shaped gas ports for ensuring that each point of a wafer
passing across the port has the same residence time under the gas port. Ans.
6. Therefore, the Examiner concludes, without dispute, that it would have
been obvious to modify Park’s gas ports to be pie-shaped in order to ensure
that each point of a wafer passing across the port has the same residence
time under the port. Id.
As discussed above, Appellant does not dispute either the Examiner’s
findings with regard to Yudovsky1 and Yudovsky2, or the obviousness
conclusions based on these references. Accordingly, we need not further
discuss these references. Instead, Appellant directs its arguments against the
Examiner’s findings and obviousness conclusions regarding the Park, Kato1,
and Kurita references.
Appellant first argues that a spatial ALD chamber functions by
maintaining a separation of reactive gases using one or more gas curtains
formed by combinations of purge gas and vacuum streams. Appeal Br. 13.
Appellant asserts that the gases flow normal to the susceptor surface, split to
flow across the surface, and then flow normal to the surface again to leave
the process region. Id. According to Appellant, “[c]hanging the angle of the
gas flows of one or more of the reactive gases can dramatically affect the gas
flow balance in the particular process region of the processing chamber.” Id.
Appellant urges that a skilled artisan would have recognized that a change in
gas flow balance would likely ruin the separation of reactive gases and,
Appeal 2019-002366
Application 14/546,078

9
therefore, would not have been motivated to modify Park as the Examiner
proposes. Id. Appellant contends that angling the flow of gases in the
reaction space balances out rotation friction that high speed rotation of the
susceptor assembly causes and helps maintain separation of the gases. Id.
This argument is not persuasive of reversible error because it relies on
limitations not appearing in the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (rejecting appellant’s nonobviousness argument as
based on limitations not recited in the claims); In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344,
1348 (CCPA 1982) (“Many of appellant’s arguments fail from the outset
because, as the solicitor has pointed out, they are not based on limitations
appearing in the claims.”). We note that claim 1 neither recites nor is limited
to a processing chamber for ALD. Nor does claim 1 recite any specific
arrangement of the reactive gas, purge gas, and vacuum ports that provides,
much less maintains, a separation of reactive gases using one or more gas
curtains that combinations of purge gas and vacuum streams form. Claim 1
also does not recite any coupling between the rotation speed of the susceptor
assembly and the angle at which the gas exiting the diverter contacts the top
surface of the susceptor assembly.
Appellant next argues that Park fails to teach or suggest a diverter
changing the direction of gas flow. Appeal Br. 14. Appellant asserts that
Park’s gas injection plate 220 has a plurality of injection holes 250
penetrating therethrough such that a gas is injected downward. Id. at 15.
According to Appellant, causing the gas to inject downward is not changing
the direction of the gas flow because Park does not teach or suggest that
such injecting is at an angle as recited in claim 1. Id.
Appeal 2019-002366
Application 14/546,078

10
We disagree. As the Examiner explains (Ans. 14), the recitation that
“the diverter [has] a plurality of angled apertures therethrough to change a
direction of a flow of gas passing through the diverter” in claim 1 is broad—
claim 1’s scope includes a diverter with angled apertures that change the
direction of gas flowing through the diverter. As Appellant explains (Appeal
Br. 15), Park has a plurality of apertures, in this case angled orthogonal to
the surface of the diverter, that necessarily change the direction of gas
flowing through the diverter, so as to flow downward through the apertures.
In this regard, we note that Appellant’s apertures 291 are also orthogonal to
the surface of diverter 290, whereas the diverter itself is angled relative to
the gas distribution assembly (and susceptor assembly) so as to direct gas
flow to the susceptor assembly at an angle of less than 90˚. Thus, what Park
is lacking is not a diverter having a plurality of angled apertures
therethrough to change a direction of a flow of gas passing through the
diverter, but a diverter that directs the gas flow toward the top surface at an
angle of less than 90˚ relative to the top surface of the susceptor assembly.
This is precisely what the Examiner acknowledges Park does not teach and
for which the Examiner relied upon Kato1’s teaching.
Turning then to Kato1, Appellant argues that the Examiner has
mischaracterized this reference. Appeal Br. 15. Appellant asserts that
Kato1’s inclination adjustment mechanism caused the gas delivery line of
the reactant gas nozzle to be tilted. Id. at 16. Appellant contends that this
structure is very different from that recited in claim 1, in that Appellant’s
diverter comprises a plurality of apertures and is positioned at the front face
of the gas distribution assembly. Id. Appellant urges that Kato1’s
“inclination adjustment mechanism and reactant gas nozzle does not have
Appeal 2019-002366
Application 14/546,078

11
any apertures because no gas passes through the component.” Id. Appellant
also urges that Kato1’s inclination adjustment mechanism and reactant gas
nozzle is located within the vacuum container, rather than at the front face of
the gas distribution assembly. Id. Moreover, Appellant contends that these
components are not planar components and, therefore, cannot be coplanar
with the front face of the gas distribution assembly. Id.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. As the
Examiner explains (Ans. 15), Kato1’s inclination adjustment mechanism is
not the diverter; rather reactant gas nozzles 31, 32 and purge gas nozzles 41,
42 are diverters. Contrary to Appellant’s assertion, each of these nozzles has
gas discharge ports or apertures 33, 40 to discharge reactant or purge gas
downwardly toward susceptor assembly 2. Kato1 ¶ 78. Also contrary to
Appellant’s assertion, Kato1’s gas nozzles are positioned at the front face of
gas distribution assembly 11, of which the vacuum chamber is a part. Kato1
Fig. 5. Although Kato1’s gas nozzles are tubes rather than planar
components, such configuration does not prevent these nozzles from being
“approximately coplanar” with the front face of the gas distribution
assembly. Indeed, Kato1’s Figure 5 depicts nozzle 32 as approximately
coplanar with the gas distribution assembly in that apertures 33 are all
aligned in the same plane as the lower face of gas distribution assembly 11.
Further, notwithstanding this fact, as the Examiner finds (Ans. 16), Park’s
diverter 220 is also coplanar with the front face of the gas distribution
assembly. Park Fig. 6.
Appellant next argues that it makes no sense to equate a flow of 90˚
with a flow of less than 90˚ because the purpose of the recited diverter is to
change the angle of gas flow from 90˚ to less than 90˚. Appeal Br. 16.
Appeal 2019-002366
Application 14/546,078

12
Appellant also contends that “an angle of 90˚ cannot reasonably be
considered a range.” Id.
This argument is not persuasive of reversible error because it
mischaracterizes the Examiner’s rejection, specifically the modification of
Park in view of Kato1’s teaching. As the Examiner finds (Ans. 4, 16), Kato1
teaches an inclination adjustment mechanism for adjusting the inclination of
the reactant gas nozzle relative to the horizontal position, which angles the
apertures so as to direct the gas flow onto the susceptor assembly at an angle
that may be less than or greater than 90˚. Thus, Kato1 teaches a diverter that
may direct gas flow over a range that overlaps the angles recited in claim 1.
See E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V., 904 F.3d 996 (Fed. Cir.
2018) (“[A] prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges
of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art.”
(quoting In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003))).
Appellant next argues that there would have been no rational reason
for a skilled artisan to turn to Kurita for a suggestion of actuators because
Kurita does not teach or suggest spatial ALD. Appeal Br. 17. Appellant also
contends that Kurita fails to teach or suggest a diverter or changing the angle
of gas flow. Id.
These arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. The Examiner
did not rely upon Kurita in the rejection for teaching either a diverter or
changing the angle of gas flow. As discussed above, Park and Kato1teach
these features. Further, the Examiner finds that Kurita is within Appellant’s
field of endeavor, which the Examiner defines as “gas phase deposition,”
and that Kurita is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Appellant
is concerned, which the Examiner defines as a “reliable substrate support.”
Appeal 2019-002366
Application 14/546,078

13
Ans. 17. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (A reference is
analogous art if it is either in the field of the applicant’s endeavor, or is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was
concerned.)
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s definition of the field of endeavor
because plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (“PECVD”) as Kurita
teaches “is distinct in method and apparatus from spatial atomic layer
deposition,” which functions by maintaining separation of reactive gases
using one or more gas curtains. Reply Br. 6–7. However, Appellant’s claims
neither recite nor are limited to a processing chamber for ALD. Also, claim
1 does not recite any specific arrangement of the reactive gas, purge gas, and
vacuum ports that provides, much less maintains, a separation of reactive
gases using one or more gas curtains. Moreover, Appellant discloses that the
invention relates to a batch processing platform for performing ALD and
CVD on substrates. Spec. ¶ 2. Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s
definition of the field of endeavor as “gas phase deposition.”
Notwithstanding this, we also note that Appellant fails to respond to or
otherwise challenge the Examiner’s finding that Kurita is reasonably
pertinent to the problem with which Appellant was concerned. Accordingly,
a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s position that
Kurita is analogous prior art.
Appellant next argues that the Examiner’s proposed combination of
the teachings of the references constitutes improper picking and choosing
from these various unrelated teachings and amounts to improper hindsight
reconstruction. Appeal Br. 17–18. Appellant also argues that the Examiner’s
Appeal 2019-002366
Application 14/546,078

14
rejection lacks articulate reasoning with rational underpinning to support the
proposed combination. Id. at 18–19.
Neither of these arguments is persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. Appellant has not shown error in any of the
Examiner’s findings or reasoning regarding the teachings of each of the
references. Nor has Appellant shown that the Examiner’s rationale for
modifying Park in view of the secondary teachings is present only in
Appellant’s disclosure and not in these prior art teachings. For example,
Appellant urges that the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion lacks
articulated reasoning even though the Examiner states that it would have
been obvious to modify Park to include a diverter controller “in order to
adjust the amount of reactant gases supplied from the diverter and adsorbed
by a substrate being worked as taught by [Kato1].” Ans. 4; see Kato1 ¶ 25.
Thus, the prior art disclosures themselves support the Examiner’s reasons for
combining the teachings of Park, Kato1, Yudovsky1, Kurita, and
Yudovsky2.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 1, 4, 5, 10, and 14–16.

Rejection 2
The Examiner rejects claims 2, 3, and 6–9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Park in view of Kato1, Yudovsky1, Kurita, Yudovsky2,
and Kato2. Ans. 7–8. Appellant argues claims 2 and 3 as one group and
claims 6–9 as a separate group. Appeal Br. 21–23. In each instance,
Appellant repeats the argument that Park fails to teach or suggest a diverter
to control one or more direction of the reactive gas flow and the angle of the
Appeal 2019-002366
Application 14/546,078

15
reactive gas flow,” and that none of Kato1, Yudovsky1, Kurita, and
Yudovsky2 remedies this deficiency. Id. at 21, 22. However, for the reasons
we explain above, this argument is not persuasive of reversible error.
Moreover, Appellant raises the same additional argument for each of these
two groups of claims. Accordingly, we address these claims together as a
single group.
Claims 2, 3, and 6–9 individually depend directly from claim 1. As
Appellant states, claim 2 further requires that “the diverter changes the flow
of reactive gas to be angled in a direction of rotation of the susceptor
assembly,” and claim 3 further requires that “the diverter changes the flow
of reactive gas to be angled in a direction opposite of rotation of the
susceptor assembly.” Further, each of claims 6–9 further requires the
diverter to change the flow of reactive gas to be angled toward either the
inner peripheral edge or outer peripheral edge of the susceptor assembly and
against or along a direction of rotation of the susceptor assembly.
The Examiner finds that Kato2 teaches a diverter comprising flow
regulation plates 37a, 37b to change the flow of a reactive gas, which may
be angled in both a direction of rotation and a direction opposite of rotation
of the susceptor assembly for preventing dilution of the reactive gas. Ans. 7.
Therefore, the Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have modified Park’s diverter as Kato2 teaches to change the flow of
reaction gas in both a direction of rotation and a direction opposite of
rotation in order to prevent dilution of reactive gas. Id. at 8. Such a
combination would, in combination with Kato1’s angle adjustment, provide
a diverter to change the flow of reactive gas to be angled toward either the
Appeal 2019-002366
Application 14/546,078

16
inner peripheral edge or outer peripheral edge of the susceptor assembly, and
against or along a direction of rotation of the susceptor assembly. Id. at 19.
Appellant argues that Kato2 fails to teach or suggest a diverter
positioned approximately coplanar with the front face of the gas distribution
assembly and having a plurality of apertures therethrough to change a
direction of a flow of gas. Appeal Br. 22, 23. Appellant contends that
Kato2’s flow regulation plates 37a, 37b do not have a plurality of angled
apertures. Id.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. We first
note that the Examiner does not rely on Kato2 for teaching a diverter
positioned approximately coplanar with the front face of the gas distribution
assembly or for having a plurality of apertures therethrough to change a
direction of a flow of gas. As discussed above, the Examiner finds, and we
agree, that Park and Kato1 teach these features. Further, although flow
regulation plates 37a, 37b do not themselves have a plurality of angled
apertures, Kato2 teaches that these plates are part of a diverter that does
include a plurality of angled apertures. See Kato2, Fig. 14, apertures 33.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that these plates function
to change the flow of reaction gas in both a direction of rotation and a
direction opposite of rotation in order to prevent dilution of reactive gas.
Ans. 7. In addition, we note that Kato1 teaches that purge gas exiting purge
gas nozzles 41, 42 splits and flows in a direction of rotation, as well as a
direction opposite of rotation of the susceptor assembly. See Kato1, Figs. 13,
16.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 2, 3, and 6–9.
Appeal 2019-002366
Application 14/546,078

17
CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and
in the Examiner’s Answer, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1–
10 and 14–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 5, 10,
14, 15
103 Park, Kato1,
Yudovsky1,
Kurita,
Yudovsky2
1, 4, 5, 10,
14, 15

2, 3, 6–9 103 Park, Kato1,
Yudovsky1,
Kurita,
Yudovsky2,
Kato2
2, 3, 6–9
16 103 Park, Kato1,
Yudovsky1,
Kato2, Kurita,
Yudovsky2
16
Overall
Outcome
1–10, 14–16
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED