Ramesh Chandrasekharan et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2020

13934624 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 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.
13/934,624 07/03/2013 Ramesh Chandrasekharan 1015292-000755 2378
163209 7590 03/02/2020
SLW / Lam Research Corporation
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
CROWELL, ANNA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2020 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):
SLW@blackhillsip.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
uspto@slwip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RAMESH CHANDRASEKHARAN, JEREMY TUCKER,
KARL LEESER, and ALAN SCHOEPP
____________

Appeal 2018-007412
Application 13/934,624
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.

SNAY, 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, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18–
20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Lam Research Corporation as the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 9, 11, and 15 are withdrawn. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2018-007412
Application 13/934,624

2
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to a plasma processing apparatus. Spec. ¶ 1.
Claim 1 reads:
1. A deposition apparatus for processing semiconductor
substrates having an isothermal processing zone, comprising:
a chemical isolation chamber in which semiconductor
substrates are processed;
a process gas source in fluid communication with the
chemical isolation chamber for supplying a process gas into the
chemical isolation chamber;
a showerhead module which delivers process gases from
the process gas source to the isothermal processing zone
wherein the showerhead module includes a faceplate wherein a
lower surface of the faceplate forms an upper wall of a cavity
defining the isothermal processing zone; a backing plate; an
isolation ring which surrounds the faceplate and the backing
plate wherein the isolation ring supports the backing plate; a
support element which attaches the faceplate to the backing
plate; and at least one compression seal which forms an outer
perimeter of a central plenum between the faceplate and the
backing plate wherein a contact area between the support
element and the faceplate is less than 1% of the total surface
area of the faceplate, the compression seal comprising an
annular lever seal which is compressed between the faceplate
and the backing plate;
a substrate pedestal module configured to heat and
support a semiconductor substrate wherein an upper surface of
the pedestal module forms a lower wall of the cavity defining
the isothermal processing zone within the chemical isolation
chamber,
wherein the faceplate is a ceramic faceplate and the
deposition apparatus further comprises an annular RF contact
made of a metallic strip having at least one bend wherein the
RF contact is electrically connected to an RF electrode
embedded in the ceramic faceplate and wherein the annular RF
contact forms the outer perimeter of an outer gas plenum
between the backing plate and the ceramic faceplate;
wherein the support element comprises at least one
Appeal 2018-007412
Application 13/934,624

3
upwardly extending projection which contacts the ceramic
faceplate, wherein the at least one upwardly extending
projection is located on an inner annular flange of the isolation
ring, wherein the inner annular flange of the isolation ring
underlies an outer portion of the ceramic faceplate; and
wherein the at least one compression seal comprises first
and second compression seals wherein the first compression
seal is a first annular lever seal which is compressed between
the faceplate and the backing plate and forms an inner gas
plenum between the faceplate and the backing plate and the
second compression seal is a second annular lever seal which is
compressed between the faceplate and the backing plate
wherein the second lever seal surrounds the first lever seal and
forms an intermediate gas plenum which surrounds the inner
gas plenum, and wherein an outer gas plenum surrounds the
intermediate gas plenum.
Appeal Br. 30–31 (Claims Appendix).
Independent claim 12 generally is directed to the showerhead module
element recited in claim 1. Each remaining claim on appeal depends from
claim 1 or 12.

REJECTIONS
All claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over White,3 Fischer,4 Ehrlich,5 Tomoyasu,6 and Sabri.7

3 US 2005/0183827 A1, published August 25, 2005.
4 US 2008/0242085 A1, published October 2, 2008.
5 US 2013/0299605 A1, published November 14, 2013.
6 US 5,900,103, issued May 4, 1999.
7 US 2012/0222815 A1, published September 6, 2012.
Appeal 2018-007412
Application 13/934,624

4
OPINION
Each independent claim recites “a support element which attaches the
faceplate to the backing plate.” Appellant argues, inter alia, the Examiner
erred in finding White discloses a support element that attaches the faceplate
to the backing plate, as claimed. See e.g., Appeal Br. 20 (“[S]howerhead 22
is not ‘attached’ to wall 18.”). We are persuaded the Examiner has not
identified evidence sufficient to support the finding that White meets the
recited attachment. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection for the
reasons set forth in Appellant’s briefs. We add the following for emphasis.
Relevant to Appellant’s principal argument on appeal, the Examiner
finds that Figures 1, 2, and 5 of White depict a plasma processing apparatus
having a showerhead module formed by faceplate 22, backing plate 18,
isolation ring 24, and support element 54. Final Act. 3.
White’s Figure 2 is reproduced below.

Figure 2 is an expanded sectional view of a shower head module.
As Appellant points out (Appeal Br. 20), White positions faceplate 22
by providing shelf 54 on which faceplate 22 is seated and is free to slide, to
Appeal 2018-007412
Application 13/934,624

5
accommodate radial expansion and contraction of the faceplate due to
temperature changes. White ¶ 60. Appellant contends that because White’s
faceplate can freely slide, it is not attached. Appeal Br. 20.
The Examiner responds that “the term ‘attach’ can simply mean to
join or to connect,” and that Appellant’s claims do not require the faceplate
and backing plate to be “directly” attached. Ans. 11. Even accepting the
Examiner’s stated interpretation of “attach,” we are persuaded of reversible
error. Particularly, the Examiner fails to provide evidence or reasoning
sufficient to show that White’s arrangement would meet even an indirect
attachment of the depicted faceplate 22 and plate 18. The Examiner
identifies White’s shelf 54 and dielectric liner 24 as the recited support
element. Final Act. 3. However, the Examiner does not explain how these
elements in White indirectly attach plates 22 and 18. To the contrary, White
expressly requires that plate 22 is “free to slide across the top surface of the
shelf” to accommodate thermal expansion and contraction. White ¶ 60.
That is, White’s faceplate is configured to freely move relative to plate 18.
As such, the Examiner’s reasoning that White’s plates 22 and 18 are joined
or connected, such that they are indirectly attached, is not supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Accordingly, the rejection is not sustained.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14,
16, and 18–20 is reversed.

Appeal 2018-007412
Application 13/934,624

6
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 5, 7,
8, 10, 12,
14, 16, 18–
20
103(a) White, Fischer,
Ehrlich,
Tomoyasu, Sabri
1, 2, 4, 5, 7,
8, 10, 12,
14, 16, 18–
20

REVERSED