Pal, Aniruddha et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 13, 2020

2019003276 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 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.
13/408,810 02/29/2012 Aniruddha Pal 15752US 4466
44257 7590 10/13/2020
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPLIED MATERIALS
24 GREENWAY PLAZA
SUITE 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
EXAMINER
ZERVIGON, RUDY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/13/2020 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 ANIRUDDHA PAL, MARTIN JEFFREY SALINAS, JARED
AHMAD LEE, PAUL B. REUTER, and IMAD YOUSIF

Appeal 2019-003276
Application 13/408,810
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Applied
Materials, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-003276
Application 13/408,810

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is generally directed to a “processing system
with the capability to a single vacuum pump to service vacuum processing
regions having different pumping requirements.” (Spec. ¶ 4.) Independent
claim 1 is representative of the appealed subject matter and is reproduced
below:
1. A system for processing substrates, comprising:
a chamber body having a first substrate transfer chamber isolated
from a second substrate transfer chamber, wherein the first
substrate transfer chamber is vertically disposed above the
second substrate transfer chamber;
a vacuum pump coupled to the first and the second transfer
chambers through a single foreline;
a high conductance pumping conduit having a first conduit, the
first conduit having a first end and a second end, the first conduit
having a first conduit diameter, the second end of the first conduit
coupled directly to the first substrate transfer chamber;
and
a low conductance pumping conduit having a second conduit, the
second conduit having an up end and a low end, the second
conduit of the low conductance pumping conduit having a
second conduit diameter smaller than the first conduit diameter,
the first end of the first conduit and the low end of the second
conduit connected to a first end of the single foreline, the up end
of the second conduit coupled directly to the second substrate
transfer chamber, wherein the high conductance pumping
conduit and the low conductance pumping conduit share the
same single foreline coupled directly to the vacuum pump,
wherein the foreline has a second end coupled to the vacuum
pump.
Claims Appendix.
Appeal 2019-003276
Application 13/408,810

3
The following rejections are presented for our review: 2
I. Claims 1, 3–5, and 7–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Lee (2007/0166133 A1, published July
19, 2007) in view of Kasai (US 2005/0189074 A1, published Sept. 1, 2005).
II. Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lee in view of Kasai and further in view of Kurita (US
7,207,766 B2, issued Apr. 24, 2007).
III. Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lee in view of Kasai and further in view of Yieh (US
6,114,216, issued Sept. 5, 2000).
IV. Claims 13–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamagishi (US 2010/0147396 A1, published June 17,
2010) in view of Kasai.
V. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Yamagishi in view of Kurita and further in view of Yieh.
VI. Claim 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamagishi in view of Kurita.
VII. Claim 18 is rejected under U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Yamagishi in view of Kurita and further in view of Ohta (US 2004/0177810
A1, published Sept. 16, 2004).

2 The complete statement of the rejections on appeal appears in the February
15, 2018 Final Action. (Final Act. 2–16.)
Appeal 2019-003276
Application 13/408,810

4
OPINION
We consider whether Appellant has identified reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejections. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections,” citing Ex parte Frye, 94
USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)).

Rejections I–III
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3–5, and 7–10 over the combination of
Lee and Kasai; claims 2 and 11 over the combination of Lee in view of
Kasai and further in view of Kurita; and claims 6 and 12 over the
combination of Lee in view of Kasai and further in view of Yieh.
We limit our discussion to the independent claim 1 as argued by
Appellant. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claims 2–12 stand or fall with
independent claim 1. Although additional references are applied in the
rejections of claims 2, 6, 11 and 12, the Appellant does not provide a
substantive argument as to the separate patentability of those claims but,
rather, argue that the additional references do not remedy the deficiency in
the references applied to claim 1. (Appeal Br. 14–16).
The Examiner finds Lee described exhausting arrangements that
accommodate non-equal flows, or conductances, from plural stacked
chambers. (Final Act. 2–3.) The Examiner finds Lee teaches a high
conductance pumping conduit (piping from top 548 to 158; Figures 5, 7)
coupled directly to the first substrate transfer chamber, having a first
conduit, with a first diameter having a first end (pipe-top 548 interface) and
a second end (pipe-top 158 interface) and a low conductance pumping
Appeal 2019-003276
Application 13/408,810

5
conduit (piping from middle 548 to 158; Figures 5, 7) coupled directly to the
second substrate transfer chamber having a up end and low end. (Final Act.
5). The Examiner finds Lee discloses the exhaust system 154 can be
coupled to at least one exhaust port 162 and therefore suggests creating a
single foreline as required by the claimed invention. (Final Act. 5–6; Lee ¶
34.) The Examiner finds Lee does not show the low conductance pumping
conduit (piping from middle 548 to 158; Figures 5, 7) having a second
conduit diameter smaller than the first conduit diameter. (Final Act. 6.) The
Examiner finds Kasai teaches a wafer processing apparatus including both
high conductance pumping conduit with a larger diameter 34 and low
conductance pumping conduit with a smaller diameter 42. (Final Act. 7;
Kasai ¶ 10, Fig. 8.) The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to
optimize the diameters of Lee’s first and/or second conduit diameters and
exhaust piping connections as taught by Kasai. (Final Act. 7.)
The dispositive issue for these rejections is the following:
Did the Examiner err in determining that Lee and Kasai would have
suggested a system for processing substrates comprising high and low
conductance pumping conduits with different diameters having one end
coupled to a respective chamber and another end coupled to the same
foreline, as required by independent claim 1?
We answer this question in the negative.
Appellant argues Lee and Kasai did not teach or suggest a high and
low conductance pumping conduit with different diameters having one end
coupled to a respective chamber and another end coupled to the same
foreline, as required by independent claim 1. (Appeal Br. 12–14, Reply Br.
1–2.) Appellant argues Lee’s teaching of using a valve in a conduit does not
Appeal 2019-003276
Application 13/408,810

6
suggest changing the diameter of a conduit with certain configuration and
connection to the same foreline. (Appeal Br. 12, Reply Br. 2.) Appellant
argues Kasai’s bypass exhaust path 42 having a smaller diameter, which
includes multiple valves, only provides an extra loop to the main exhaust
line 34 and does not have one end directly coupled to a chamber. (Appeal
Br. 13, Reply Br. 2–3.)
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
Appellant has not disputed the Examiner’s position that Lee describes a
system for processing substrates comprising high and low conductance
pumping conduits. Lee and the present invention are both directed to
vacuum chambers for processing substrates and are concerned with
regulating the flow of gas from an interior chamber utilizing a single exhaust
system. (Spec. ¶¶ 5–7; Lee ¶¶ 23, 30–35.) Lee discloses the exhaust system
154 is configured to remove gases from the interior of the chambers through
the exhaust port 162. (Lee ¶ 34.) Lee discloses the exhaust system, which
can be connected to multiple exhaust ports 162 and may comprise a single
vacuum pump. (Lee ¶ 34.) The use of a single vacuum pump suggest that
the exhaust lines from the various exhaust ports 162 are combined together
into a single line (single foreline) prior to the pump. Lee discloses control
valves 158 are utilize to selectively control the gas flow. (Lee ¶ 35.)
According to the Specification the diameter of the exhaust system provides
control of the gas flow exiting the internal volumes of the chamber. The
Specification specifically states:
As shown in Figure 1, the first exhaust conduit 138 is configured
to have a high conductance to permit a larger volume of gases to
be removed from the first chamber 104 as necessitated by the
plasma processes performed therein. The second exhaust
Appeal 2019-003276
Application 13/408,810

7
conduit 158 is configured to have a low conductance relative to
the conductance of the first exhaust conduit 138, such that the
different rates of gases pumped from the first and second
chambers 104, 106 may be simultaneously pulled through a
single foreline 142 by a single pumping system 144.
(Spec. 5.)
The invention of Lee differs from the claimed invention by failing to
disclose the size of the exhaust system exiting the high and low conductance
chambers. The Examiner determined, as shown by Kasai, that regulating the
flow of gas utilizing exhaust systems having differing diameters was known
to persons of ordinary skill in the art. (Final Act. 6–7.) A person with
ordinary skill in the art possesses a certain basic level of skill. KSR Int'l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also
a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). It cannot be reasonably
argued in view of the prior art cited, that one with ordinary skill would not
have recognized the flow of gas could have been controlled through various
methods including the use of control valves or the diameter of the exhaust
system. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably
understood that varying the diameter of the exhaust system, that provides
control of the gas flow exiting the internal volumes, was a recognized
alternative for the use of valves that perform the same function.
Accordingly we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 1–12
over the combination of Lee and Kasai as specified in rejections I–III.

Appeal 2019-003276
Application 13/408,810

8
Rejections IV–VII
The Examiner rejects claims 13–16 over the combination of
Yamagishi and Kasai; claims 17 and 19 over the combination of Yamagishi
in view of Kasai and further in view of Kurita; claim 18 over the
combination of Yamagishi in view of Kasai and further in view of Ohta; and
claim 20 over the combination of Yamagishi in view of Kasai and further in
view of Yieh.
We limit our discussion to the independent claim 13 as argued by
Appellant. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claims 14–20 stand or fall with
independent claim 1. Although additional references are applied in the
rejections of claims 17–20, the Appellant does not provide a substantive
argument as to the separate patentability of those claims but, rather, argue
that the additional references do not remedy the deficiency in the references
applied to claim 13. (Appeal Br. 16–20).
The dispositive issue for these rejections is the following:
Did the Examiner err in determining that Yamagishi and Kasai would
have suggested a system for processing substrates comprising high and low
conductance pumping conduits with different diameters having one end
coupled to a respective chamber and another end coupled to the same
foreline, as required by independent claim 13?3
We answer this question in the negative.
Appellant argues Yamagishi and Kasai do not teach or suggest a high
and low conductance pumping conduit with different diameters having one
end coupled to a respective chamber and another end coupled to the same
foreline, as required by independent claim 13. (Appeal Br. 16–17.)

3 We limit our discussion to independent claim 13.
Appeal 2019-003276
Application 13/408,810

9
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
Appellant has not disputed the Examiner’s position that Yamagishi describes
a system for processing substrates comprising high and low conductance
pumping conduits. Yamagishi and the present invention are both directed to
vacuum chambers for processing substrates and are concerned with
regulating the flow of gas from an interior chamber utilizing a single exhaust
system. (Spec. ¶¶ 5–7; Yamagishi ¶9 Fig. 7.) Yamagishi teaches a method
for controlling exhaust flow in multiple-substrate processing apparatus.
(Yamagishi ¶ 9.) Yamagishi also discloses the reaction chamber may be
provided with an exhaust port where the exhaust duct of one of the reaction
station and the exhaust duct of another of the reaction station may be
connected to each other, and one of the exhaust ducts may be connected to
the exhaust port. (Yamagishi ¶ 26.) Describing the embodiment of figure 7,
Yamaguchi discloses the multiple-substrate processing apparatus comprises
a common exhaust line 78 connected to a dry pump 72 which is shared by
the reaction chambers and the transfer chambers. (Yamagishi ¶ 46.) The
exhaust lines 76 and 77 for the respective reaction chamber are connected
downstream, leading to the dry pump 72 via a line 78 provided with an
automatic pressure controller. (Yamagishi ¶ 46.) The Examiner cited Kasai
for teaching a wafer processing apparatus including both high conductance
pumping conduit with a larger diameter 34 and low conductance pumping
conduit with a smaller diameter 42. (Kasai ¶ 10, Fig. 8.) As stated above, a
person with ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the flow of gas
could have been controlled through various methods including the use of
control valves or the diameter of the exhaust system.
Accordingly we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims
Appeal 2019-003276
Application 13/408,810

10
13–20 over the combination of Yamagishi and Kasai as specified in
rejections IV–VII.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 7–10 103(a) Lee, Kasai 1, 3–5, 7–
10

2, 11 103(a) Lee, Kasai, Kurita 2, 11
6, 12 103(a) Lee, Kasai, Yieh 6, 12
13–16 103(a) Yamagishi, Kurita, 13–16
20 103(a) Yamagishi, Kurita,
Yieh
20
17, 19 103(a) Yamagishi, Kurita, 17, 19
18 103(a) Yamagishi, Kurita,
Ohta
18
Overall
Outcome
1–20

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