WINSOR LAM et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 31, 2022

2020004948 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2022)

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. 13/570,712 08/09/2012 WINSOR LAM 16987USA 7680 55649 7590 01/31/2022 Moser Taboada / Applied Materials, Inc. 1030 Broad Street Suite 203 Shrewsbury, NJ 07702 EXAMINER LAUGHLIN, NATHAN L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2119 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/31/2022 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): Applied_Materials.Pair@anaqua.com ataboada@mtiplaw.com docketing@mtiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte WINSOR LAM, KEITH A. MILLER, CARL JOHNSON, MARTIN LEE RIKER, and YE XU ________________ Appeal 2020-004948 Application 13/570,712 Technology Center 2100 ________________ Before JAMES R. HUGHES, LARRY J. HUME, and JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Final Rejection of claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. INVENTION The disclosed and claimed invention relates to controlling processing conditions during physical vapor deposition processes. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, Applied Materials, Inc. is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-004948 Application 13/570,712 2 1. A method for processing a substrate in a process chamber, comprising: receiving, by a synchronization controller, process control parameters for one or more devices from a process controller to perform a first chamber process; determining, by the synchronization controller, a time to send each of the process control parameters to the one or more devices; for each of the one or more devices, adjusting, by the synchronization controller, the determined time to send each of the process control parameters based on specific signal process delays associated with each of the one or more devices, wherein the specific signal process delays include external signal transmission delays and internal signal processing delays associated with each of the one or more devices; and sending, by the synchronization controller, the process control parameters to each of the one or more devices at the adjusted times to perform the first chamber process, wherein the synchronization controller includes one or more output channels, each channel directly coupled to one of the one or more devices. Appeal Br. 23 (Claims Appendix). REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1-6 and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Gopalraja (US 2004/0140196 A1; published July 22, 2004) and Pak (US 2012/0095599 A1; published Apr. 19, 2012). Non-Final Act. 2-11. The Examiner rejects claims 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Gopalraja, Pak, and Ding (US 2005/0272254 A1; published Dec. 8, 2005). Non-Final Act. 11-15. Appeal 2020-004948 Application 13/570,712 3 ANALYSIS I. Claims 1 and 5-14 Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) The Examiner finds Gopalraja teaches controller 303 receives data signals and sends the data signals to factory automation host computer 320 that evaluates data from several systems, platforms, or chambers, which the Examiner maps to the limitations “receiving, by a synchronization controller, process control parameters for one or more devices from a process controller to perform a first chamber process” recited in claim 1. Ans. 3-6 (citing Gopalraja ¶¶ 47, 49, 51, 52, Fig. 6A); Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Gopalraja ¶ 49). The Examiner finds Gopalraja teaches factory automation host computer 303 provides an instruction signal at the beginning or end of etching substrate 10 in response to evaluation of the data by host software program 322, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “determining, by the synchronization controller, a time to send each of the process control parameters to the one or more devices” recited in claim 1. Ans. 3-6 (citing Gopalraja ¶¶ 47, 49, 51, 52, Fig. 6A); Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Gopalraja ¶ 49). Moreover, the Examiner finds Pak teaches calculating a command vector and including a delay buffer to compensate for processing delays and transport delays such that mechanisms work in synchrony, which the Examiner maps to the limitation adjusting, by the synchronization controller, the determined time to send each of the process control parameters based on specific signal process delays associated with . . . devices, wherein the specific signal process delays include external signal transmission delays and internal signal processing delays associated with . . . devices recited in claim 1. Ans. 6-8; Non-Final Act. 4-5 (citing Pak ¶ 30). The Examiner concludes that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time Appeal 2020-004948 Application 13/570,712 4 of the invention (hereinafter “PHOSITA”) would have combined Gopalraja and Pak as combining known elements yielding predictable results to allow devices to be synchronized. Ans. 8-10; Non-Final Act. 6 (citing Pak ¶ 30). Appellant argues the Examiner inconsistently applies both Gopalraja’s controller 303 and factory automation host computer 320 as teaching the claimed “synchronization controller.” Appeal Br. 5-8; Reply Br. 3-7. In addition, Appellant argues Pak merely teaches delay buffer 150 connected to slow servos 140 rather than “each of the one or more devices” as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 8-11; Reply Br. 8. Appellant argues the Examiner relies on impermissible hindsight to combine Gopalraja and Pak because adjusting times to control certain power supplies or other times in Gopalraja to improve substrate processing uniformity is not a problem contemplated in Gopalraja or Pak. Appeal Br. 12-14; Reply Br. 9. Appellant further argues Pak is not analogous because (1) Pak’s field of endeavor is a hybrid computer numerically controlled machining system, whereas the present claims pertain to processing a substrate in a process chamber and (2) Pak’s problem being solved is not pertinent to a method for processing a substrate in a process chamber that compensates for the delay times for controlling subsystems (e.g., power supplies) in a substrate processing environment and improving substrate processing deposition performance by synchronizing the sending of process parameters. Appeal Br. 14-16; Reply Br. 9-11. We disagree with Appellant, as discussed below. Gopalraja teaches controller 303 receives data signals and sends the data signals to factory automation host computer 320 (i.e., the combination of Gopalraja’s controller 303 and factory automation host computer 320 Appeal 2020-004948 Application 13/570,712 5 teach the claimed “synchronization controller”; Gopalraja’s elements 303 and 320 receive and evaluate data from elements 318 and 322) that evaluates data from several systems, platforms, or chambers, and which teaches the limitations “receiving, by a synchronization controller, process control parameters for one or more devices from a process controller to perform a first chamber process” recited in claim 1. Ans. 3-6 (citing Gopalraja ¶¶ 47, 49, 51, 52, Fig. 6A); Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Gopalraja ¶ 49). Gopalraja teaches factory automation host computer 303 provides an instruction signal at the beginning or end of etching substrate 10 (i.e., determining whether to send at the beginning or end teaches determining a time to send each of the process control parameters to one or more devices) in response to evaluation of the data by host software program 322, which teaches the limitation “determining, by the synchronization controller, a time to send each of the process control parameters to the one or more devices” recited in claim 1. Ans. 3-6 (citing Gopalraja ¶¶ 47, 49, 51, 52, Fig. 6A); Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Gopalraja ¶ 49). We disagree with Appellant’s argument that Pak merely teaches delay buffer 150 connected to slow servos 140 rather than “each of the one or more devices” as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 8-11; Reply Br. 8. One cannot show nonobviousness “by attacking references individually” where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). In this case, the Examiner relies on Gopalraja to teach each of the one or more devices. Ans. 3-6 (citing Gopalraja ¶¶ 47, 49, 51, 52); Non-Final Act. 3-4 (citing Gopalraja ¶¶ 47, 49, 52). In addition, Pak teaches calculating a command vector and including a delay buffer to Appeal 2020-004948 Application 13/570,712 6 compensate (i.e., based on the specific signal processing delays) for processing delays (i.e., internal signal processing delays) and transport delays (i.e., external signal transmission delays) such that mechanisms work in synchrony, which teaches the limitation adjusting, by the synchronization controller, the determined time to send each of the process control parameters based on specific signal process delays associated with . . . devices, wherein the specific signal process delays include external signal transmission delays and internal signal processing delays associated with . . . devices as recited in claim 1. Ans. 6-8; Non-Final Act. 4-5 (citing Pak ¶ 30). We disagree with Appellant’s argument that the Examiner relies on impermissible hindsight to combine Gopalraja and Pak because adjusting times to control certain power supplies or other times in Gopalraja to improve substrate processing uniformity is not a problem contemplated in Gopalraja or Pak. Appeal Br. 12-14; Reply Br. 9. Appellant’s improper hindsight argument is unavailing. Appeal Br. 12-14; Reply Br. 9. Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence that combining the respective teachings of the references (as determined by the Examiner - Ans. 8-10; Non-Final Act. 6 (citing Pak ¶ 30)) would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art,” or that such a combination would have “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Nor has Appellant provided any objective indicia of non-obviousness, which, as our reviewing court explains, “operate[] as a beneficial check on hindsight.” Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese & Powder Sys., Inc., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Appeal 2020-004948 Application 13/570,712 7 We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that a PHOSITA would have combined Gopalraja and Pak as combining known elements yielding predictable results to allow devices to be synchronized. Ans. 8-10; Non- Final Act. 6 (citing Pak ¶ 30). We, therefore, determine that the Examiner has set forth sufficient “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). We disagree with Appellant’s argument that Pak is not analogous art for the reasons discussed below. Appeal Br. 14-16; Reply Br. 9-11. Appellant improperly narrowly characterizes the field of endeavor as a method for processing a substrate in a process chamber that compensates for the delay times for controlling subsystems (e.g., power supplies) in a substrate processing environment and improving substrate processing deposition performance by synchronizing the sending of process parameters. Appeal Br. 14-16; Reply Br. 9-11. However, the test for determining whether a prior art reference constitutes analogous art to the claimed invention is: (1) whether the prior art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, or (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In determining the field of endeavor, we look to the written description and claims, including the structure and function of the invention. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1326. Appeal 2020-004948 Application 13/570,712 8 Indeed, the Supreme Court provided guidance in determining the applicability of a reference’s teachings in an obviousness inquiry. In KSR, the Court explained that if a feature has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it would improve a similar device in that field or another, implementing that feature on the similar device is likely obvious. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that in defining the field of invention, and in determining the relevance of Pak to the obviousness inquiry, a broad approach should be taken. Ans. 10. Here, the appropriate scope of the field of endeavor is controlling processing conditions. Spec. ¶ 1. We also agree with the Examiner’s determination that Pak’s field of endeavor pertains to compensating delay time in processing, which is the same field of endeavor as Appellant’s field of endeavor. Ans. 10 (citing Pak ¶¶ 1, 6, 25, 30, 34, 35). Because we agree with the Examiner’s determination that Pak is in the same field of endeavor as Appellant’s claims, we need not determine whether Pak is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. Appellant does not argue claims 5-14 separately with particularity. Appeal Br. 5-22. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of: (1) independent claims 1 and 13; and (2) dependent claims 5-12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). II. Claim 2 Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) The Examiner finds Gopalraja teaches controller 303 includes electronic hardware including electrical circuitry comprising circuits that are suitable for operating chamber 106 and its peripheral components, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “sent on the output channel directly coupled Appeal 2020-004948 Application 13/570,712 9 to a control port of the device” recited in claim 2. Ans. 11 (citing Gopalraja ¶ 48, Fig. 3B); Non-Final Act. 6 (citing Gopalraja ¶ 48, Fig. 6A). Appellant argues Gopalraja’s paragraph 48 fails to teach “sent on the output channel directly coupled to a control port of the device” as required by claim 2. Appeal Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 11. We disagree with Appellant. Gopalraja teaches controller 303 includes electronic hardware including electrical circuitry comprising circuits (i.e., this at least suggests an output channel directly coupled to a control port) that are suitable for operating chamber 106 and its peripheral components, which teaches or suggests the limitation “sent on the output channel directly coupled to a control port of the device” recited in claim 2. Ans. 11 (citing Gopalraja ¶ 48, Fig. 3B); Non-Final Act. 6 (citing Gopalraja ¶ 48, Fig. 6A). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). III. Claim 3 Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) The Examiner finds Gopalraja teaches analog and digital input and output boards and a PHOSITA would conclude that digital process parameters are input into interface boards and analog signals are output to analog devices such as valve 174. Ans. 11-12 (citing Gopalraja ¶¶ 47, 48, Figs. 3A and 6A); Non-Final Act. 6-7 (citing Gopalraja ¶ 48). Appellant argues Gopalraja merely teaches analog and digital input and output boards, but fails to teach that process control parameters are received in a digital format from the process controller and wherein the synchronization controller converts the digital process control parameters for each device into analog signals to be sent to and control each of the one or Appeal 2020-004948 Application 13/570,712 10 more devices. Appeal Br. 17-18; Reply Br. 12. We disagree with Appellant. Gopalraja teaches analog and digital input and output boards and digital process parameters are input into interface boards (i.e., received in a digital format) and analog signals are output to analog devices such as valve 174 (i.e., converts the digital process control parameters into analog signals), which teaches the limitation “wherein the process control parameters are received in a digital format from the process controller, and wherein the synchronization controller converts the digital process control parameters for each device into analog signals to be sent to and control each of the one or more devices” recited in claim 3. Ans. 11-12 (citing Gopalraja ¶¶ 47, 48, Figs. 3A and 6A); Non-Final Act. 6-7 (citing Gopalraja ¶ 48). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). IV. Claim 4 Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) The Examiner finds Gopalraja teaches analog and digital input and output boards and a PHOSITA would conclude that digital process parameters are input into interface boards and analog signals are output to analog devices such as valve 174. Ans. 11-12 (citing Gopalraja ¶¶ 47, 48, Figs. 3A and 6A); Non-Final Act. 7 (citing Gopalraja ¶ 48). Appellant argues Gopalraja merely teaches analog and digital input and output boards, but fails to teach sending the analog signals corresponding the process control parameters separately to each of the one or more devices over each channel directly coupled to one of the one or more devices. Appeal Br. 18-19; Reply Br. 12. We disagree with Appellant. Appeal 2020-004948 Application 13/570,712 11 Gopalraja teaches analog and digital input and output boards (i.e., a channel directly coupled to one or more devices) and that digital process parameters are input into interface boards, and analog signals are output to analog devices such as valve 174 (i.e., sending the analog signals corresponding to process control parameters), which we find teaches or suggests the limitation “sending the analog signals corresponding the process control parameters separately to each of the one or more devices over each channel directly coupled to one of the one or more devices” recited in claim 4. Ans. 11-12 (citing Gopalraja ¶¶ 47, 48, Figs. 3A and 6A); Non-Final Act. 7 (citing Gopalraja ¶ 48). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). CONCLUSION Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-6, 11-14 103(a) Gopalraja, Pak 1-6, 11-14 7-10 103(a) Gopalraja, Pak, Ding 7-10 Overall Outcome 1-14 Appeal 2020-004948 Application 13/570,712 12 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED