Applied Materials, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 15, 2021

2020005934 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2021)

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.
13/799,490 03/13/2013 Nitin K. Ingle 080042-017078USA-0869606 1041
57385 7590 09/15/2021
AMAT / Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
ANTOLIN, STANISLAV
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/15/2021 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
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NITIN K. INGLE, ANCHUAN WANG, and XINGLONG CHEN
Appeal 2020-005934
Application 13/799,490
Technology Center 1700
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN A. EVANS, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, 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, 5–9, 14–17, and 21–25.2 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 the real party in interest as Applied Materials,
Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 3, 4, 10–13, 18–20, and 26–28 have been cancelled previously.
Appeal 2020-005934
Application 13/799,490

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to semiconductor processing chambers
including “a gas distribution assembly in the chamber that may be
configured to deliver both the first and second precursors into a processing
region of the chamber, while maintaining the first and second precursors
fluidly isolated from one another until they are delivered into the processing
region of the chamber.” Spec. ¶ 6. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates
the claimed subject matter:
1. A system for semiconductor processing, the system comprising:
a chamber configured to house a semiconductor substrate
in a processing region of the chamber;
a first remote plasma system fluidly coupled with a first
access of the chamber at a top of the chamber and configured to
deliver a fluorine-containing precursor into the chamber
through the first access, wherein the first remote plasma system
comprises a remote plasma unit having the interior lined with
an oxide material that is inert to the fluorine-containing
precursor, and wherein the first remote plasma system is
configured to operate at a power level between about 10 W and
about 400 W;
a second remote plasma system fluidly coupled with a
second access of the chamber and configured to deliver a
hydrogen-containing precursor into the chamber through the
second access of the chamber through a sidewall of the
chamber, wherein the second remote plasma system comprises
a remote plasma unit having the interior lined with an
aluminum-containing material which is different from the oxide
material and that is inert to the fluorine-containing precursor,
and wherein the second remote plasma system is configured to
operate at a power level of between about 1000 Wand 10 kW;
and
a gas distribution assembly located within the chamber at
a top portion of or above the processing region of the chamber
Appeal 2020-005934
Application 13/799,490

3
and configured to deliver both the fluorine-containing and the
hydrogen-containing precursors into the processing region of
the chamber, wherein the gas distribution assembly comprises
an upper plate and a lower plate, wherein the upper plate
further comprises a first plate and a second plate, the first plate
located between the top of the chamber and the second plate,
and wherein the first plate comprises the oxide material, and
wherein the second plate comprises the aluminum-containing
material.
Appeal Br. 22 (Claim App.) (emphases added).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Kim et al. US 2002/0129769 Al Sept. 19, 2002
Chung et al. US 2004/0018304 Al Jan. 29, 2004
Jung et al. US 2006/0162661 Al July 27, 2006
Goto et al. US 2008/0216958 Al Sept. 11, 2008
Lakshmanan et al. US 2011/0230008 Al Sept. 22, 2011
Tamura et al. US 2011/0244693 Al Oct. 6, 2011
“Bulletin ASTRONe - 4/02: Type AX7680 - Reactive Gas Generator”
MKS Instruments, Inc. pp. 1−2. (2002), http://www.mksinst.com/
(last accessed Aug 6, 2015)
Bulletin ASTRONex-7/09: Type AX7685 - Reactive Gas Generator.”
MKS Instruments, Inc. pp. 1−2 (2002), http://www.mksinst.com/
(last accessed Aug. 6, 2015) 
“Bulletin Plasma Source - 12/02: Type AX7610 - Downstream Plasma
Source” MKS Instruments, Inc. pp. 1−4 (2002), http://www.mksinst.com/
(last accessed Aug. 6, 2015) 
"Bulletin ASTRON hf-s - 3/05: Type AX7645 - Reactive Gas Generator"
MKS Instruments, Inc. pp. 1−2 (2005), http://www.mksinst.com/
(last accessed Aug. 6, 2015)
“Bulletin R*evolution - 9/06: Type AX7690 - Remote Plasma Source”
MKS Instruments, Inc. pp. 1−2 (2006), http://www.mksinst.com/
(last accessed Aug. 6, 2015)

Appeal 2020-005934
Application 13/799,490

4
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 5–9, 11, 12, and 21–23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Lakshmanan, Kim, Goto, Chung, and Bulletin
Plasma Source AX7610. Non-final Act. 3–26.
Claims 14, 15–17, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Lakshmanan, Kim, Goto, Chung, Bulletin Plasma
Source AX7610, and Jung.3 Non-final Act. 26–33.
Claims 1, 2, 5–9, 11, 12, and 21–23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Lakshmanan, Kim, Goto, Bulletin Plasma
Source AX7610, and Tamura.4 Non-final Act. 33–36.
Claims 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lakshmanan, Kim, Goto, and Bulletin Plasma Source
AX7610. Non-final Act. 37–47.
OPINION
We have reviewed the rejection in light of Appellant’s arguments that
the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained below, we concur with
Appellant’s arguments concerning unpatentability under § 103. We add the
following to address and emphasize specific findings and arguments.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred by modifying Lakshmanan
with Kim and Goto because the combination does not teach or suggest claim
1 features of “a second remote plasma system . . . to deliver a hydrogen-

3 Chung was omitted from the list of applied prior art in rejecting claims 14,
15, 21, and 22. See Non-final Act. 26–31.
4 This rejection is substantially similar to the other rejection of this group of
claims, but substitutes Tamura for Chung. See Non-final Act. 34.

Appeal 2020-005934
Application 13/799,490

5
containing precursor into the chamber through the second access of the
chamber through a sidewall of the chamber” and “the upper plate further
comprises a first plate and a second plate, the first plate located between the
top of the chamber and the second plate.” Appeal Br. 9–14. Appellant
specifically argues that Kim includes only one plasma source, which is
delivered to the chamber from the top portion of the chamber. Id. at 9, 10.
According to Appellant, Lakshmanan only discloses delivering the
deposition material from a single remote plasma source or by generating the
plasma in the chamber. Id. at 9–10 (citing Lakshmanan ¶ 61, Figs. 3, 5).
With respect to Goto, Appellant argues that the showerhead arrangement
shown in Figure 5 does not have the recited upper and lower layers and is “a
single-piece showerhead 216, that is deposition coated with silicon oxide to
produce a layer of silicon oxide 252 over the showerhead as a seasoning
layer.” Id. at 12.5
In response, the Examiner explains that gas source 390, shown in
Figure 4 of Lakshmanan, meets the recited second plasma source, wherein
Kim was relied on to show that the plasma source delivers the precursor
through a side wall of the chamber. Ans. 15–18. According to the
Examiner, the proposed modification would have been obvious because it
constitutes rearranging the point of delivery for the plasma precursors. See
Id. at 18–19. Regarding the teachings of Goto, the Examiner responds by
explaining that:
A PoSA would understand that FIG. 5, of Goto ‘958
discloses, suggests, or otherwise yields predictable the features
recited in independent claim 1, including, inter alia, a plate

5 We do not address Appellant’s other arguments because these issues are
dispositive of the appeal.
Appeal 2020-005934
Application 13/799,490

6
(showerhead 216 including protective layer 252) comprising a
first plate (protective layer 252) and a second plate (showerhead
216), the first plate comprising an oxide material (e.g., silicon
oxide {SiO2}), and the second plate comprising an aluminum-
containing material (aluminum) (180910_OA Sec 5/Pgs 14–
17).
Ans. 21.
Lakshmanan discloses a plasma deposition chamber that includes a
plasma generation region located either in the deposition chamber or remote
from the chamber. ¶ 8. Lakshmanan’s Figure 3 is reproduced below:

Fig. 3 of Lakshmanan
In Figure 3, Lakshmanan shows hydrogen-containing gas source 390
delivering the hydrogen-containing gas through chamber wall 302 and
silicon-containing gas source 320 providing the silicon-containing gas
through showerhead 310 into processing area 306. See Lakshmanan ¶ 36.
However, neither of these sources are a plasma source. The only disclosure
Appeal 2020-005934
Application 13/799,490

7
of a remote plasma source discloses by Lakshmanan is to introduce the
deposition material from a remote plasma source 324. See Lakshmanan ¶
37, Fig. 4.
The Examiner’s assertion that modifying Lakshmanan with Kim’s
disclosure of introducing the second precursor through a sidewall of the
chamber would constitute rearranging the elements and therefore obvious
see Ans. 18–19, is not supported by evidence. As stated by Appellant, claim
1 requires a first remote plasma source and a second remote plasma source.
Appeal Br. 22. The Examiner has not identified any teachings in
Lakshmanan or Kim, or other applied references, to support the assertion
that Kim’s introduction of a source gas and a purge gas through tubes 319
and 320 (Figure 3A) or tubes 519 and 520 (Figure 5) would have suggested
a second remote plasma source. That is, even if Lakshmanan is modified
with Kim to provide the single plasma source to the side of the chamber, the
Examiner has not explained how the modification would result converting a
single plasma source chamber into the recited chamber having first and
second plasma sources.
Additionally, we agree with Appellant that Goto provides a coating on
the showerhead surface 250 and lacks any identifiable upper and lower
plates. Appeal Br. 12. Goto describes layer 252 as a coating “formed on an
underside surface 250 of a showerhead 216.” See Goto ¶ 16, Fig. 5.
Therefore, as further asserted by Appellant, “Goto coating 252 is not a plate
above a second plate 216. Coating 252 is a coating on plate 216, and the
coating does not change the showerhead from one plate to two” and “[i]t is
still unclear what would be the three plates in the modification proposed by
Appeal 2020-005934
Application 13/799,490

8
the Examiner where the unidentified upper plate of Lakshmanan is
‘substituted’ with the coated plate of Goto.” Appeal Br. 13.
Conclusion
For the above reasons, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s
proposed combination of Lakshmanan with Kim and Goto, even if modified
with the remaining applied references, does not teach or suggest the recited
features of claim 1. The Examiner has not identified any teachings in the
other applied prior art references to cure the above-identified deficiencies.
Therefore, Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s position with respect to the rejections of independent claim 1,
other independent claims which recite similar limitations (see claims 23 and
24), as well as the remaining claims dependent therefrom. See Appeal Br.
22–26 (Claims App.).
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5–9,
11, 12, 21–
23

103
Lakshmanan, Kim,
Goto, Chung,
Bulletin Plasma
Source AX7610
1, 2, 5–9,
11, 12, 21–
23
14, 15–17,
21, 22
103 Lakshmanan, Kim,
Goto, Chung, Jung
Bulletin Plasma
Source AX7610,
14, 15–17,
21, 22
1, 2, 5–9,
11, 12, 21–
23
103 Lakshmanan, Kim,
Goto, Tamura
Bulletin Plasma
Source AX7610
1, 2, 5–9,
11, 12, 21–
23
Appeal 2020-005934
Application 13/799,490

9
24, 25 103 Lakshmanan, Kim,
Goto, Bulletin
Plasma Source
AX7610
24, 25
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 5–9,
11, 12, 14–
17, 21–25

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).
REVERSED