Tien Tan

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 22, 2021

2020006386 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 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.
13/112,179 05/20/2011 Tien Fak Tan 080042-016276USA-0806747 6984
57385 7590 10/22/2021
AMAT / Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
NUCKOLS, TIFFANY Z
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/22/2021 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 TIEN FAK TAN
Appeal 2020-006386
Application 13/112,179
Technology Center 1700

Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.

ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 6, 8–11, 13–15, 17, 19, 20, and
22–29.2 Appeal Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents:
Specification filed May 20, 2011 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action entered
March 18, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed April 1, 2020 (“Appeal
Br.”); Examiner’s Answer entered July 14, 2020 (“Ans.”), and Reply Brief
filed September 14, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Applied Materials, Inc., as the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-006386
Application 13/112,179

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant states the invention relates to systems and chambers for
processing dielectric films on substrates. Spec. ¶ 7. Claims 1 and 17 are
reproduced below, and are illustrative of the claimed subject matter (Appeal
Br., Claims Appendix 25, 27):
1. A substrate processing system comprising:
a vertical combo processing chamber comprising:
a gas distribution assembly comprising a showerhead and
lid assembly, the gas distribution assembly coupled with
exterior chamber housing of the vertical combo processing
chamber,
an upper substrate processing chamber including an
upper pedestal configured to support an upper substrate,
wherein the upper substrate processing chamber is configured
to receive plasma effluents through the showerhead,
a lower substrate processing chamber configured to
receive and then support a lower substrate on a lower pedestal
during a lower-chamber process, wherein the lower substrate
processing chamber is at least partially defined from above by
the upper pedestal,
a substrate heater configured to heat the lower substrate
in the lower substrate processing chamber during the lower-
chamber process, wherein the substrate heater is directly
coupled with the upper pedestal, and
a thermal barrier between the upper and lower substrate
processing chambers configured to maintain the upper substrate
below about 100 °C in the upper substrate processing chamber
while the lower substrate is concurrently heated above about
100 °C in the lower substrate processing chamber, wherein the
upper pedestal comprises the thermal barrier;
Appeal 2020-006386
Application 13/112,179

3
a robot configured to remove the upper substrate from the
upper substrate processing chamber, lower the upper substrate
and place the upper substrate into the lower substrate
processing chamber; and
a pumping system operatively coupled with the lower
processing chamber and configured to remove lower-chamber
process effluents from the lower substrate processing chamber
during the lower-chamber process.
17. A substrate processing system comprising:
a chamber body having chamber sidewalls, wherein the
chamber body defines an access through the chamber body for a
lower pedestal stem coupled with a lower pedestal configured
to support a substrate, and wherein the chamber body defines at
least two inlets within a single wall of the chamber body for
receiving substrates into the chamber body;
a lid assembly, wherein the chamber body and lid
assembly define a processing region;
an upper pedestal directly coupled with at least a portion
of the chamber sidewalls and configured to support a substrate,
wherein the upper pedestal is positioned to divide the
processing region into an upper processing region and a lower
processing region, wherein the upper pedestal is positioned
between the at least two inlets within the single wall of the
chamber body, wherein the lower processing region is at least
partially defined from above by the upper pedestal, wherein a
fluid channel is defined within the upper pedestal, and wherein
the upper processing region and lower processing region are
fluidly separate from one another.

Appeal 2020-006386
Application 13/112,179

4
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Fairbairn et al.
(“Fairbairn”)
US 6,176,667 B1 Jan. 23, 2001
Kitayama et al.
(“Kitayama”)
US 7,235,137 B2 Jun. 26, 2007
Harvey et al.
(“Harvey”)
US 2004/0200499 A1 Oct. 14, 2004
Kent et al.
(“Kent”)
US 2005/0269030 A1 Dec. 8, 2005
Iwabuchi
(“Iwabuchi”)
US 2006/0245852 A1 Nov. 2, 2006
Shah et al.
(“Shah”)
US 2009/0014127 A1 Jan. 15, 2009
Kurita et al.
(“Kurita”)
US 2010/0139889 A1 Jun. 10, 2010

REJECTIONS
1. Claim 17 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Iwabuchi. Final Act. 4–5.
2. Claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iwabuchi, Kurita,
and Kent. Final Act. 6–14.
3. Claim 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Iwabuchi, Kurita, Kent, and Fairbairn.
Final Act. 14–17.
4. Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iwabuchi, Kurita, Kent, and
Kitayama. Final Act. 17–18.
Appeal 2020-006386
Application 13/112,179

5
5. Claims 19, 20, 22, 23, and 28 are rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iwabuchi, Kurita,
and Shah. Final Act. 18–22.
6. Claims 24, 26, 27, and 29 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iwabuchi, Kurita, Kent, and
Shah. Final Act. 22–27.
7. Claim 25 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Iwabuchi, Kurita, Kent, Shah, and Harvey.
Final Act. 27–28.

OPINION
Rejection 1
The Examiner’s Rejection
In rejecting claim 17 as anticipated by Iwabuchi, the Examiner found
Iwabuchi discloses a substrate processing system including a chamber body
having chamber sidewalls (vertical sidewalls 21, 22) and an upper pedestal
(112, 114, internal horizontal wall of 21, 22, 71), which is directly coupled
with at least a portion of the chamber sidewalls, “as shown by how 112, 71
and the interior horizontal wall or ceiling/floor of the two chambers are
directly mounted to the vertical sidewalls of 21, 22.” Final Act. 5, citing
Iwabuchi, Fig. 3, ¶¶ 25–71. The Examiner found Iwabuchi discloses the
lower processing region is at least partially defined from above by the upper
pedestal “as shown by 71 being in the lower chamber.” Id.
The Examiner’s annotated version of a portion of Iwabuchi’s Figure
3, which best illustrates the Examiner’s position, is reproduced from the
Examiner’s Answer below.
Appeal 2020-006386
Application 13/112,179

6

The portion of Iwabuchi’s Figure 3 reproduced above is a schematic
longitudinal sectional view of a load lock apparatus including a load lock
apparatus 21 (lower apparatus, reference number omitted in the Examiner’s
reproduced version), upper surface heating plate 71, lower surface heating
plate 72, load lock apparatus 22, lower surface cooling plate 112, upper
surface cooling plate 111, gas supply path 131, substrate G, supporting
members 110, and water convey pipes 114. Iwabuchi ¶¶ 24, 32, 35, 43, 44.
The Examiner has shaded portions of 21, 22, 71, 112, and 114 to illustrate
how Iwabuchi’s structure corresponds to the recited upper pedestal.
Appellant’s Arguments
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s findings with respect to
Iwabuchi’s cooling plate 112 are incorrect, because cooling plate 112 only
contacts the floor of the chamber, and not the sidewalls of the chamber as
recited in claim 17. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant contends that the Examiner’s
finding that the combination of the two chambers in Iwabuchi form the
Appeal 2020-006386
Application 13/112,179

7
upper pedestal is not a reasonable reading of Iwabuchi. Id. In this regard,
Appellant contends only supporting members 110 support substrate G in
Iwabuchi, and such supporting members are not directly coupled with a
sidewall of the chamber. Id. Appellant contends also that Iwabuchi does not
disclose a lower processing region that is at least partially defined from
above by the upper pedestal, because heating plate 71 is not an upper
pedestal and is not associated with an upper processing chamber. Id. at 9.
Appellant contends no component of the upper chamber in Iwabuchi defines
any portion of the lower chamber. Id.

Discussion
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that Iwabuchi fails to
disclose an upper pedestal as recited in claim 17. As discussed above, the
Examiner’s finding with respect to the pedestal is that the combination of
elements 112, 114, 21, 22, and 71 disclosed in Iwabuchi corresponds to the
upper pedestal recited in claim 17. Although Appellant contends it is
unreasonable to combine multiple elements to meet the recited upper
pedestal (Reply Br. 4), we do not ascertain any inconsistency between the
Examiner’s position and the upper pedestal recited in claim 17.
In this regard, Appellant does not point us to any particular definition
of “pedestal” that would exclude multiple structures or connote a particular
structure to support Appellant’s argument.3 Further, we find that the
Specification does not provide any particular definition or limit the structural
characteristics of the upper pedestal. Indeed, the Specification discloses the

3 “Pedestal” may be defined as “a support or foundation.”
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/pedestal.
Appeal 2020-006386
Application 13/112,179

8
pedestal 408 may include channels 419 to provide a path for cooling fluid
(Spec. ¶ 45) such that any alleged distinction between a cooling plate and an
upper pedestal is not readily apparent.
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that support
member 110 are the only supporting structures disclosed in Iwabuchi. That
is, as the Examiner found, Iwabuchi expressly discloses the plate 112 “may
be configured such that supporting member for the substrate G are provided
on the upper surface . . . to receive the substrate G from the supporting
members 110.” Iwabuchi ¶ 75. Such a configuration is similar to
Appellant’s “upper chamber lift pins 409,” which the Specification discloses
may be used to lower the substrate onto the upper pedestal. Spec. ¶ 30;
Fig. 4.
Thus, as shown by the shading in the Examiner’s annotated version of
Iwabuchi’s Figure 3 reproduced above, when the substrate G is received by
the plate 112, it is supported by plate 112, and horizontal walls of 21 and 22,
which are directly connected to the sidewalls of the chamber. Ans. 29.
Accordingly, Iwabuchi’s structure meets all the recited characteristics of the
upper pedestal recited in claim 17. As a result of the Examiner’s application
of Iwabuchi, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Iwabuchi
fails to disclose the lower processing region is not at least partially defined
from above by the upper pedestal, as the horizontal walls of 21 and 22 meet
this feature.

Rejection 2
Appellant does not present separate arguments with respect to the
claims subject to this rejection. See Appeal Br. 10–14. Accordingly we
Appeal 2020-006386
Application 13/112,179

9
select claim 1 as representative for disposition of this rejection. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2019).
The Examiner’s Rejection
In rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over the combination of
Iwabuchi, Kurita, and Kent, the Examiner found Iwabuchi discloses a
substrate processing system including an upper substrate processing
chamber 22 and an upper pedestal (the combined structure of 110, 112, and
114, bottom wall of 22 and top wall of 21), where the upper substrate
processing chamber is configured to receive gas from gas supply path 131.
Final Act. 7; Iwabuchi ¶ 49; Fig. 3. The Examiner found Iwabuchi discloses
a lower substrate processing chamber 21 including a lower pedestal 72, and
a substrate heater 71, the substrate heater being directly coupled with the
upper pedestal because it is mounted on the ceiling of 21. Id.
The Examiner found Iwabuchi does not disclose the gas distribution
system is a showerhead in which plasma effluents are supplied through the
showerhead. Final Act. 9. The Examiner found Kurita discloses a substrate
processing system including a vertical combo processing chamber including
a gas distribution assembly comprising a showerhead. Id. The Examiner
determined it would have been obvious to have modified Iwabuchi as taught
by Kurita to include the gas showerhead as part of the gas inlet mechanism,
as it is known to include a gas showerhead in a load/lock vertically stacked
processing chamber in the upper chamber with the lid for the chamber. Id.
at 10.
The Examiner found that Iwabuchi in view of Kurita do not expressly
teach that the showerhead is used for plasma. Final Act. 10. The Examiner
determined that such expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof
Appeal 2020-006386
Application 13/112,179

10
during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the
patentability of apparatus claims and that the apparatus of Iwabuchi in view
of Kurita would be capable of processing plasma gas effluents. Id. at 10–11.

Appellant’s Arguments
Appellant argues the combination of prior art fails to disclose or
suggest a plasma processing chamber that include a gas distribution
assembly including a showerhead and lid assembly, where the chamber is
configured to receive plasma effluents through the showerhead; a lower
substrate processing region that is at least partially defined from above by an
upper pedestal; and a substrate heater in a lower processing chamber that is
directly coupled with the upper pedestal. Appeal Br. 11.

Discussion
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments that it would not have
been obvious to have incorporated Kurita’s showerhead into the gas
distribution system of Iwabuchi. Appellant’s arguments center on an alleged
infeasibility of incorporating Kurita’s showerhead into Iwabuchi due to
cooling plate 111 being located almost fully across the interior top of
Iwabuchi’s upper chamber. Appeal Br. 11–12. However, as the Examiner
explains, Iwabuchi discloses a gas supply path 131, and as such, already
includes a gas inlet, and there is no requirement claim 1 that the showerhead
span the entire surface of the wafer. Ans. 31.
In addition, Appellant’s arguments appear to rely on a particular
arrangement of cooling plate 111 as depicted in Figure 3 of Iwabuchi.
However, there is no indication that Iwabuchi’s Figure 3 is drawn to any
Appeal 2020-006386
Application 13/112,179

11
particular scale. The only requirement of the cooling plate 111 is that it “has
an area larger than that of the upper surface of the substrate G.” Iwabuchi
¶ 46. Appellant does not sufficiently explain why such requirement would
preclude incorporating the showerhead of Kurita into Iwabuchi as part of its
gas distribution assembly or why this means that the cooling plate 111
“extends fully across the top portion of the chamber housing” as argued by
Appellant. Reply Br. 5. Appellant also does not sufficiently explain why
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been incapable of modifying
Iwabuchi’s structure in order to accommodate the showerhead disclosed in
Kurita.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been led to include a showerhead in a lower
chamber and not the top chamber as claimed for the reasons expressed by
the Examiner. Appeal Br. 12–13; Ans. 31–32. That is, we agree with the
Examiner that Kurita discloses the use of showerhead 240 and the upper
chamber (see Kurita Fig. 2; ¶ 53) and that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have recognized that it would have been obvious to have modified the
existing gas inlets of Iwabuchi with the gas showerheads of Kurita.
Ans. 31–32.
Appellant’s arguments with respect to the lower processing chamber
being at least partially defined from above by the upper pedestal have
already been addressed above with respect to claim 17, and are not
persuasive for the reasons already expressed. Appellant’s arguments with
respect to the substrate heater in claim 1 that is recited as directly coupled
with the upper pedestal (Appeal Br. 14) are similarly unpersuasive as they
also rely on the position that Iwabuchi does not disclose an upper pedestal.
Appeal 2020-006386
Application 13/112,179

12
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.

Rejections 3 and 4
Claims 8, 11, and 14, the subject of Rejections 3 and 4, depend from
claim 1. Appellant does not separately argue these rejections.
Accordingly, we affirm Rejections 3 and 4 for similar reasons as
discussed above for Rejection 2.

Rejection 5
At the outset we observe that Appellant does not argue claims 20 and
28, which depend from claim 17. As a result, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 20 and 28 for the reasons discussed above with respect to
Rejection 1.
Appellant argues claims 19 and 22 subject to this rejection. Appeal
Br. 14–18. We limit our discussion to claim 19, which is sufficient to
dispose of the issues raised with respect to this rejection.
Claim 19
Claim 19 depends from claim 17 and further recites that the lid
assembly comprises a top plate, the top plate comprises an electrode, and the
electrode is electrically insulated from the rest of the top plate with at least
one insulator. Appeal Br. 27.
The Examiner found Shah discloses a lid assembly 322 including a
top plate 370, 374 and an electrode 388, where the electrode is insulated
from the rest of the top plate with at least one insulator 390. Final Act. 22,
citing Shah, Figs. 2C, 5, 6A, ¶¶ 44–48. The Examiner concluded that it
would have been obvious to have substituted the gas supply and showerhead
Appeal 2020-006386
Application 13/112,179

13
and generic lid of Iwabuchi in view of Kurita with the lid assembly with
electrode and showerhead in Shah, as an art-recognized equivalent means for
providing gas effluent/ plasma gas effluent. Id. at 22.
Appellant contends that gas bowl 370 in Shah is not a top plate, and
electrode 388 is a fully discrete component from gas bowl 370 and liquid
assembly 322. Appeal Br. 16.
We agree with Appellant that electrode 388 in Shah is a discrete
component and not part of the top plate as recited in claim 19. The
Examiner’s position is that “electrode 388 [is] coupled to RF power and
insulated and coupled to top plate on [the] outer edge.” Ans. 35; annotated
Figure 2C of Shah. However, Shah discloses a plasma generator including
“an electrode 388 sandwiched between isolator materials 390, which are
arranged to the outer wall 374 of the gas bowl 370.” Shah ¶ 44; Fig. 2C.
Thus, we do not find the Examiner’s position to be reasonable given the
express disclosure of Shah.
The Examiner’s further explanation that “the electrode is near the has
[sic] being dispersed but does not interfere with a central region of the
apparatus, such that it would be capable of combining for [sic] reasonable lid
structure and gas dispersion” (Ans. 36), to the extent it can be understood,
does not provide a sufficient rationale underpinning, because it only
indicates a potential capability without identifying a sufficient reason to
incorporate an electrode into a top plate as recited in claim 19. Thus, the
Examiner’s position that Shah provides support for “an addition of the
electrode in the top plate that would be added” to the combination of
Iwabuchi and Kurita (Ans. 36–37) is not supported by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Appeal 2020-006386
Application 13/112,179

14
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19. Claims
22 and 23 depend from claim 19. Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 22 and 23 for similar reasons as discussed for claim 19.

Rejection 6
Appellant argues claims 24, 26, 27, and 29 separately, which are all
the claims subject to this rejection. Appeal Br. 18–23. We limit our
discussion to claims 24 and 26, which is sufficient to dispose of all the
issues relevant to this rejection.

Claim 24
Claim 24 depends from claim 1, and further recites that the lid
assembly “comprises a top plate, and wherein a remote plasma region is
defined between the top plate and showerhead of the vertical combo
processing chamber.” Appeal Br. 28.
The Examiner found that the combination of Iwabuchi, Kurita, and
Kent do not expressly disclose the remote plasma region as claimed. Final
Act. 23. The Examiner found Shah discloses a remote plasma region
defined between a top plate and a showerhead in a vertical processing
chamber. Id. at 24, citing Shah ¶ 50; Fig. 5. The Examiner determined it
would have been obvious to have substituted the remote plasma region, lid,
and showerhead disclosed in Shah for the combined gas supply and
showerhead assembly of Iwabuchi, Kurita, and Kent, because such a
combination is an “art-recognized equivalent means for providing gas
effluent/plasma gas effluent.” Id. at 25.
Appeal 2020-006386
Application 13/112,179

15
Appellant contends that the remote plasma source 474 in Shah does
not include a remote plasma region defined between plate 462 and
showerhead 450 as claimed. Appeal Br. 18–19. Appellant argues Shah
discloses an internal plasma system, which while not remote, is a substrate-
level plasma. Id. at 19. Thus, Appellant argues Shah does not disclose an
internal, but remote, plasma region as claimed. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. As to Appellant’s
argument that in order to meet claim 24, the plasma must be generated
internally, such a requirement is not expressly recited in claim 24. We
emphasize that claim 24 is directed to a substrate processing system, and not
a method. The Specification describes a “remote plasma” as a plasma where
“no active plasma is in direct contact with the substrate disposed with the
chamber body.” Spec. ¶ 36. As the Examiner explains, Shah discloses a
remotely sourced plasma that is between the top plate and the showerhead.
Ans. 40, annotated Fig. 5 of Shah.
We acknowledge that the Specification discloses that remote plasma
regions are regions where the plasma precursors may be introduced and that
the plasma effluents may be produced in the remote plasma regions. Spec.
¶ 34. However, Appellant does not present sufficient arguments that the
area in Shah identified by the Examiner would be incapable of acting as a
remote plasma region in the event that the plasma effluents must be
generated therein.
As a result, we are of the view that the Examiner’s position is
sufficiently supported by the record.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24.

Appeal 2020-006386
Application 13/112,179

16
Claim 26
Claim 26 depends from claim 1, and further recites the lid assembly
includes a top plate, “wherein the showerhead defines a recessed ledge on
which the top plate is seated, and wherein the showerhead is seated on a
recessed ledge defined by the chamber housing of the vertical combo
processing chamber.” Appeal Br. 28.
In rejecting claim 26, the Examiner found Shah discloses a lid
assembly 322 including a top plate 370, 374, where the combination of
showerhead 370, 388, and 390 define a recessed ledge on which the top plate
is seated, and wherein the showerhead is seated on a recessed ledge defined
by the chamber housing. Final Act. 25, citing Shah, Figs. 2C, 5.
Appellant contends the gas bowl 370 does not define a recessed ledge
where anything, including top plate 322, is seated. Appeal Br. 20–21.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. That is, although we
agree with the Examiner that claim 26 is not limited to the specific structures
cited by Appellant as represented in Figure 4 of the instant application, the
Examiner’s general statements that incorporating Shah’s structure in the
scale required by the combination of Iwabuchi and Kurita would meet the
claimed structures lack sufficient explanation as to how the recited structure
would be obtained. Ans. 42–43. The Examiner does not sufficiently explain
what portions of 370, 388, and 390 correspond to each of the recessed ledges
recited in claim 26 or how such a structure, when incorporated into the
Iwabuchi/Kurita combination, would result in the structure recited in claim
26.
Appeal 2020-006386
Application 13/112,179

17
As a result, we reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 26.
Because claims 27 and 294 depend from claim 26, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of these claim for similar reasons.

Rejection 7
Claim 25 depends from claim 24 and further recites “the vertical
processing chamber comprises a blocker assembly positioned within the
remote plasma region dividing the remote plasma region into at least two
plasma zones.”
The Examiner found the combination of Iwabuchi, Kurita, and Kent
does not disclose a blocker assembly. Final Act. 27. The Examiner found
Harvey discloses a blocker plate that divides a plasma region into at least
two plasma zones, and that the blocker plate provides the added benefit of
producing a greater pressure for the plasma to achieve the necessary
distribution of processing gas over the substrate resulting in uniform
processing. Id. The Examiner determined it would have been obvious to
have incorporated a blocker plate into the combined disclosures of Iwabuchi,
Kurita, and Kent for the reasons disclosed in Harvey for greater uniform
processing. Id. at 28.
Appellant contends Harvey does not disclose an internal remote
plasma region as recited in claim 25. Appeal Br. 20. Appellant argues
Harvey discloses the RF power supply is coupled with the faceplate to
produce a plasma region between the faceplate and the pedestal, which is a
local plasma, not a remote plasma. Id.

4 Claim 29 depends from claim 27 and recites “the liner channel.” Appeal
Br. 28. We observe that claim 27 does not recite a liner channel.
Appeal 2020-006386
Application 13/112,179

18
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Harvey expressly
discloses the benefit of providing a blocker plate in the plasma region so as
to improve uniform processing. Harvey ¶ 35. Although Appellant attempts
to distinguish Harvey based on local versus remote plasma, Appellant does
not sufficiently address the Examiner’s rationale and explain why this would
mean the blocker plate, disclosed as “conventional” in Harvey (¶ 26), would
not function as described in Harvey in the combined system of Iwabuchi,
Kurita, and Kent.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 25.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
17 102(b) Iwabuchi 17
1, 6, 9, 10,
13, 15
103(a) Iwabuchi, Kurita,
Kent
1, 6, 9, 10, 13,
15

8 103(a) Iwabuchi, Kurita,
Kent, Fairbairn
8
11, 14 103(a) Iwabuchi, Kurita,
Kent, Kitayama
11, 14
19, 20, 22,
23, 28
103(a) Iwabuchi, Kurita,
Shah
20, 28 19, 22, 23
24, 26, 27,
29
103(a) Iwabuchi, Kurita,
Kent, Shah
24 26, 27, 29
25 103(a) Iwabuchi, Kurita,
Kent, Shah, Harvey
25
Overall
Outcome
1, 6, 8–11, 13–
15, 17, 20, 24,
25, 28
19, 22, 23,
26, 27, 29

Appeal 2020-006386
Application 13/112,179

19
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-IN-PART