Lam Research Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 10, 2020

15392584 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 10, 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.
15/392,584 12/28/2016 Anthony RICCI 3046-2US 5594
91286 7590 07/10/2020
Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (Lam)
P.O. Box 828
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303
EXAMINER
LEE, AIDEN Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1718
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/10/2020 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
sstevens@hdp.com
troymailroom@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ANTHONY RICCI
and HENRY POVOLNY
____________

Appeal 2019-005000
Application 15/392,584
Technology Center 1700
____________
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, GEORGE C. BEST, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
I. DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–14 of Application 15/392,584. Final
Act. (October 19, 2018). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Lam Research Corp. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-005000
Application 15/392,584
2
II. BACKGROUND
The ’584 Application describes the use of plasma to deposit films on a
wafer or semiconductor substrate to form integrated circuits. Spec. ¶ 3.
Plasma is also used to etch intended portions of the films to form patterned
microelectronics layers. Id. The ’584 Application describes that temperature
differences across the semiconductor substrate undesirably affect the
variability of etch rates and etch rate selectivities during plasma etching. Id.
¶ 4. To avoid such temperature differences, the ’584 Application describes
the temperature control of a substrate support assembly in a plasma
processing apparatus. Id. ¶ 2.
Claim 1 is representative of the ’584 Application’s claims and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief.
1. A base plate for a temperature controlled substrate
support assembly in a vacuum chamber, the base plate
comprising:
an upper surface;
a single cavity in the upper surface of the base plate;
a cylindrical wall extending upward around an outer
perimeter of the base plate to define the cavity;
a cover plate arranged on the base plate above the cavity,
wherein the cover plate is in thermal contact with the
cylindrical wall of the base plate;
a plurality of thermoelectric modules arranged within the
cavity in the upper surface of the base plate, wherein each of
the plurality of thermoelectric modules is in thermal contact
with the cover plate and the base plate, and wherein the cavity
and the plurality of thermoelectric modules are sealed from the
vacuum chamber and maintained at atmospheric pressure;
a plurality of fluid channels arranged within the base
plate below the cavity; and
Appeal 2019-005000
Application 15/392,584
3
a plurality of heat transfer pipes extending downward
toward the fluid channels from an upper surface of the base
plate within the cavity.
Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
III. REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1–11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Takahashi,2 Son,3 Knowles,4
and Vanell.5 Final Act. 2–8.
2. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combination of Takahashi, Son, Knowles, Vanell, and Beam.6
Final Act. 8–9.
IV. DISCUSSION
Appellant argues for reversal of all of the rejections at issue based
upon the limitations in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 6–16. We, therefore, select
claim 1 as representative of the claims subject to this ground of rejection and
limit our discussion to this claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

2 US 2013/0098068 A1, published Apr. 25, 2013.
3 US 2009/0071524 A1, published Mar. 19, 2009.
4 US 5,560,779, issued Oct. 1, 1996.
5 US 5,647,911, issued July 15, 1997.
6 US 4,674,565, issued June 23, 1987.
Appeal 2019-005000
Application 15/392,584
4
A. Rejection of claims 1–11, 13, and 14 as unpatentable over the
combination of Takahashi, Son, Knowles, and Vanell.
Appellant argues that the rejection of independent claim 1 should be
reversed because the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness. Appeal Br. 15. In particular, the Examiner has not provided
sufficient evidence to establish that the combination of Takahashi, Son,
Knowles, and Vanell describe or suggest every limitation in claim 1.
The ’584 Application’s claim 1 requires a “base plate comprising: an
upper surface; [and] a single cavity in the upper surface of the base plate.”
See, e.g., claim 1. In rejecting the ’584 Application’s claim 1, the Examiner
found that Takahashi describes or suggests these features. Final Act. 8
(citing Takahashi Figs. 2, 3).
Takahashi’s figure 2, reproduced below, depicts an exploded
perspective view showing a temperature control device:

Appeal 2019-005000
Application 15/392,584
5
Figure 2 of Takahashi illustrates temperature control device 1
including, inter alia, heat exchanger plate 4, seal wall 70, thermoelectric
module 50, thermoelectric module plate 5, heat equalizer plate 3, top plate 2,
and semiconductor wafer W. Spec. ¶¶ 34–38.
Takahashi’s figure 3, reproduced below, depicts a cross section of a
temperature control device:

Figure 3 of Takahashi illustrates temperature control device 1
including, inter alia, heat exchanger plate 4, seal wall 70, thermoelectric
module 50, thermoelectric module plate 5, heat equalizer plate 3, top plate 2,
and semiconductor wafer W. Id.
According to the Examiner, Takahashi’s figures 2 and 3 “clearly
teach[] . . . wall 70 []extending upward and []disposed around an outer
perimeter of []plate 4.” Answer 8. From these figures, the Examiner
Appeal 2019-005000
Application 15/392,584
6
concludes that “a cavity for arrangement of the thermoelectric module is
defined in the upper surface of []plate 4.” Id. According to the Examiner,
even assuming that wall 70 is a feature of plate 5, wall 70 renders obvious
the limitation, “a cylindrical wall extending upward around an outer
perimeter of the base plate to define the cavity,” as recited in claim 1. Id.
Appellant argues, inter alia, that these findings ignore the requirement
that the base plate’s upper surface “actually includes the cavity.” Reply Br.
3; see also Appeal Br. 7. Appellant, furthermore, asserts that claim 1
requires “that the single cavity is in the upper surface of the base plate, not
simply above the upper surface of the base plate.” Reply Br. 3.
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive.
The Examiner’s construction impermissibly reads out of claim 1 the
requirement that the “single cavity” and the “cylindrical wall” are elements
of the claimed “base plate.” See, e.g., Spec. Fig. 1. The Examiner,
furthermore, has not provided any reason why one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention would have been motivated to specifically
modify Takahashi’s plate 4 to incorporate features found in plate 5. See, e.g.,
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[I]t can be
important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of
ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the
claimed new invention does.”).
Thus, we determine that the Examiner erred by finding that
Takahashi’s seal wall 70 and plate 5, which are separate and distinct from
plate 4, describe or suggest the claimed base plate’s “single cavity” and
“cylindrical wall” features. The Examiner does not apply the teachings of
Son, Knowles, and Vanell to cure the deficiencies of Takahashi.
Appeal 2019-005000
Application 15/392,584
7
In view of the foregoing, we determine that the Examiner reversibly
erred in rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over the combination of
Takahashi, Son, Knowles, and Vanell. Accordingly, we also reverse the
rejection of claims 2–11, 13, and 14, which depend from claim 1.
B. Rejection of claim 12 as unpatentable over the combination of
Takahashi, Son, Knowles, Vanell, and Beam.
Appellant essentially argues that the rejection of claim 12 as
unpatentable over the combination of Takahashi, Son, Knowles, Vanell, and
Beam should be reversed because the Examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 1. Appeal Br. 16 (“Beam
does not remedy the deficiencies of Takahashi, Son, Knowles, and Vanell
with respect to claim 1, from which claims 12 depends.”). As discussed
above, we have reversed the rejection of claim 1. We, therefore, also reverse
the rejection of claim 12.
V. CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. §  References(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–11, 13, 14 103 Takahashi, Son, Knowles, Vanell 1–11, 13, 14
12 103 Takahashi, Son, Knowles, Vanell, Beam 12
Overall Outcome 1–14
REVERSED