User Name: Patrick Maloney
`Date and Time: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 4:38:00 PM EST
`Job Number: 160417269
`
`Document (1)
`
`1. 2012 Pat. App. LEXIS 2784
`Client/Matter: divx
`Search Terms: 2012 Pat. App. LEXIS 2784
`Search Type: Natural Language
`
`| About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2021 LexisNexis
`
`Patrick Maloney
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2014
`Page 1 of 14
`
`

`

`2012 Pat. App. LEXIS 2784
`
`Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
`
`May 31, 2012, Decided
`
`Appeal 2011-006601from Technology Center 1700Satish Chandra, Examiner
`
`USPTO Bd of Patent Appeals & Interferences; Patent Trial & Appeal Bd Decs.
`
`Reporter
`2012 Pat. App. LEXIS 2784 *
`
`Ex parte ORBOTECH LT SOLAR, LLC (In rem Application 11/826,336)
`
`Notice:
`
`ROUTINE OPINION. Pursuant to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Standard Operating Procedure 2, the opinion
`below has been designated a routine opinion.
`
`Core Terms
`
`plate, teach, porous, hole, shower, diffusion, has, elongate, plasma, slot, apparatus, width, fink, ratio, shower head,
`contaminant, showerhead, clean, skill, wafer, upstream, said, thickness, baffle, vapor, deposition, configure,
`particle, section, flange
`
`Counsel
`
`Joseph Bach, NIXON PEABODY LLP, of Washington, D.C.
`
`Panel: [*1] Before Fred E. Mckelvey, Richard E. Schafer and Richard Torczon, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`Opinion By: TORCZON
`
`Opinion
`
`TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION ON APPEAL
`
`Patrick Maloney
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2014
`Page 2 of 14
`
`

`

`2012 Pat. App. LEXIS 2784, *1
`
`Page 2 of 13
`
`The appellant (Orbotech) seeks relief from the final rejection of its claims 1-6, 11 and 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. 134.
`We AFFIRM.
`
`OPINION
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The invention relates to a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) apparatus using a "showerhead" . 1 Claim 1, 2 one of
`two independent claims on appeal, defines the invention as follows:
`1. A showerhead for a CVD apparatus, comprising:
`a shower plate being made of a metal and comprising a flat plate and a flange section extending from an
`outer edge of the flat plate; and
`a porous plate contacting a rear face of said shower plate and situated within the flange section, the porous
`plate having pores of diameter 0.5-100 [mu] m,
`
`wherein a plurality of elongated gas diffusion holes having length larger than width are formed in a plate
`section of said shower plate, which faces a workpiece, and penetrate the plate section in the thickness
`direction, the elongated gas diffusion holes having depth equal [*2] to or greater than the width, and
`said porous plate covers all of the gas diffusion holes.
`
`The showerhead has both a shower plate and a porous plate. The shower plate is metal and has a flange and
`elongated gas diffusion holes. The porous plate is behind (away from the workpiece) the shower plate, covers
`the holes in the shower plate and has micrometer-scale pores.
`
`THE REJECTIONS
`
`The examiner finally rejected 3 most of the claims as having been obvious over the combined teachings of the
`Suzuki 4 and Srivastava 5 published applications, patents to Su 6 and Janakiraman, 7 and the Japanese published
`
`1 Specification (Spec.) 1:1-5.
`
`2 All claim language is reproduced from the unchallenged claims appendix. Brief (Br.) 24-28; Examiner's Answer (Ans.) 3.
`
`3 E.g., Fin. Rej. 2, citing 35 U.S.C. 103.
`
`4 K. Suzuki et al., Method and apparatus for reducing particle contamination in a deposition system, US 2007/0215048 A1
`(Suzuki).
`
`5 A.K. Srivastava, Gas distribution plate assembly for plasma reactors, US 2005/0150601 A1 (Srivastava).
`
`6 Y.-J. Su, Gas distribution plate for semiconductor wafer processing apparatus with means for inhibiting arcing, 5,589,002
`(granted 31 December 1996) (Su).
`
`7 K. Janakiraman et al., Gas distribution showerhead , US 6,793,733 B2 (granted 21 September 2004) (Janakiraman).
`
`Patrick Maloney
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2014
`Page 3 of 14
`
`

`

`2012 Pat. App. LEXIS 2784, *2
`
`Page 3 of 13
`
`applications 8 of Oshima 9 and Nishimoto. 10 The examiner also rejected these claims as having been obvious over
`the combined teachings of the same references excluding Suzuki and Oshima. 11 Specifically, the examiner
`maintains the following combination [*3] of rejections:
`Claims 1, 2, 11 and 13-17 over Suzuki, Srivastava, Oshima, Su, Janakiraman and Nishimoto.
`Claims 3 and 4 over the base combination plus a published application of Fink. 12
`
`Claim 5 over the base combination plus a published application of Larson. 13
`
`Claim 6 over the base combination plus patents to Dhindsa 14 and Arai. 15
`Claims 1, 2, 11, 13, 15 and 16 are alternatively rejected over Nishimoto, Srivastava, Su and Janakiraman.
`Claims 3 and 4 over this second base combination plus Fink.
`Claim 5 over the second base combination plus Larson or a patent to Lee. 16
`Claim 6 over the second base combination plus Dhindsa and Arai.
`
` [*4] [*5]
`
`Suzuki
`
`The examiner relies on the Suzuki patent to teach a CVD apparatus with a shower plate. Suzuki Figure 1 (below,
`right) is a schematic view of Suzuki's CVD system. The system has a process chamber 10 with a vapor distribution
`plate 34 facing a substrate 25. The system has a vapor delivery system 40 with a set of particle diffusers 47a,
`
`8 The record available to the board includes an English-language abstract for each Japanese published application, but no
`translation of the published application itself. No one has pointed us to an objection to the form or reliability of these materials so
`we proceed to judgment on the materials before us.
`
`9 K. Oshima, Shower plate and method of manufacturing the same, and shower head using the same, Kokai 2003-282462
`(pub'd 3 October 2003) (Oshima). In the record, this reference has been cited as "Kazuyoshi".
`
`10 S. Nishimoto, Plasma processing system, Kokai 2003-338492 (pub'd 28 November 2003) (Nishimoto).
`
`11 Fin. Rej. 13.
`
`12 S.T. Fink, Method and apparatus for delivering process gas to a process chamber, US 2005/0011447 A1 (Fink).
`
`13 D.J. Larson et al., Quartz guard ring, US 2008/0099448 A1 (Larson).
`
`14 R. Dhindsa et al., Gas distribution apparatus for semiconductor processing , US 6,245,192 B1 (granted 12 June 2001)
`(Dhindsa).
`
`15 I. Arai et al., Plasma processing method and plasma processing apparatus , 6,110,287 (granted 29 August 2000) (Arai).
`
`16 C. Lee et al., Methods and apparatus for passivating a substrate in a plasma reactor, 5,968,275 (granted 19 October 1999)
`(Lee).
`
`Patrick Maloney
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2014
`Page 4 of 14
`
`

`

`2012 Pat. App. LEXIS 2784, *5
`
`Page 4 of 13
`
`47b, 47c and a vapor distribution plate 34. The examiner finds the vapor distribution plate 34 is a shower plate.
`The examiner notes an in-situ cleaning unit 70 linked to the vapor delivery system 40. The cleaning unit 70: 17
`
`[p]er a frequency determined by the operator, ...can perform routine cleanings of the deposition system 1 in
`order to remove accumulated residue on internal surfaces of deposition system 1. The in-situ cleaning system
`70 can, for example, comprise a radical generator configured to introduce chemical radical capable of
`chemically [*6] reacting and removing such residue. Additionally, for example, the in-situ cleaning system 70
`can, for example, include an ozone generator configured to introduce a partial pressure of ozone. For instance,
`the radical generator can include an upstream plasma source configured to generate oxygen or fluorine
`radical from oxygen (O[2]), nitrogen trifluoride (NF[3]), O[3], XeF[2], ClF[3], or C[3]F[8] (or, more generally,
`C[x]F[y]), respectively. The radical generator can include an Astron(R) reactive gas generator, [which is]
`commercially available…
`
`
`
`The examiner finds that Suzuki Figure 2 (right, detail, schematic of another embodiment) teaches an unlabeled
`flange on the diffuser plate 147a contacting the showerhead 134.
`
` [*7]
`
`According to the examiner, Suzuki does not disclose that the plate is flat and metal or that the flange extends
`beyond the flat plate. 18 Orbotech argues that Suzuki also lacks elongated gas diffusion holes. 19
`
`Srivastava
`
`Srivastava Figure 3 (right) shows a cross-sectional view of a gas distribution plate assembly 54 including a flange
`78. The plate may be made of aluminum. 20
`
`
`
`The examiner finds that substituting a plate like Srivastava's into an apparatus like Suzuki would be consistent
`with the ordinary level of skill in the art inasmuch as it would involve using a known device for its intended purpose.
`
`The examiner finds that the combination [*8] of Suzuki and Srivastava does not teach the claimed pore
`configuration.
`
`Oshima Kazuyoshi
`
`17 Fin. Rej. 2, citing Suzuki P0058.
`
`18 Fin. Rej. 3.
`
`19 Br. 10.
`
`20 Srivastava P0037.
`
`Patrick Maloney
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2014
`Page 5 of 14
`
`

`

`2012 Pat. App. LEXIS 2784, *8
`
`Page 5 of 13
`
`The examiner relies on Oshima for a plasma generating apparatus with a shower head. Oshima Figure 2 (right)
`shows a shower head plate 4. The shower plate 4 supplies treatment gas onto the surface of a wafer. The
`shower plate 4 contains at least 99.5 wt.% of alumina and is formed of a ceramic porous material having a
`porosity of 30-65%. 21 The examiner finds that Oshima further discloses that Oshima's preferred mean particle
`diameter is about 36.5 [mu] m and the pore diameter is in the range of 20-23 [mu] m. 22 The examiner finds that
`substituting the Oshima's porous plate into an apparatus such Suzuki/Srivastava apparatus because it would
`have simply been an example of using a known component for its known purpose. The examiner finds, however,
`that the combination still lacks the claimed elongated holes. 23 Orbotech argues that modifying Suzuki with the
`teachings of Srivastava and Oshima results in a complete replacement of Suzuki's showerhead. 24
`
` [*9]
`
`
`
`Su
`
`The examiner relies on Su for the elongated holes. 25 Su teaches a circular gas distribution plate 10 with
`elongated slots 14. Sue notes that reaction byproducts with the wafer or reaction chamber walls can block circular
`holes. 26
`
`Su Figure 3 (right) shows an enlarged detail of the plate showing the width X and length Y of a non-circular
`opening. The shower plate may be aluminum. 27 The examiner notes the following disclosure in Su:
`
`a circular gas distribution plate 10 is provided with a series of elongated slots 14, i.e., noncircular openings,
`arranged in a star-like pattern with the major axis of each slot passing through the center point or axis of plate
`10. As best seen [*10] in FIG. 3, each slot has a major axis Y and a minor axis X. The minimum length Y of
`each slot 14 should be greater than the maximum width X of slot 14, and should be at least about 635 [mu] m
`(25 mils), preferably at least about 762 [mu] m (30 mils). The maximum length Y of slot 14 is governed only by
`the size (diameter) of plate 10. That is, the maximum length Y of slot 14 must be less than the radius of plate
`10. The minimum width X of slot 14 should be at least about 127 [mu] m (5 mils) and preferably will be at least
`
`21 Oshima abstract (trans.).
`
`22 Fin. Rej. 4, citing Oshima P0033.
`
`23 Fin. Rej. 4-5.
`
`24 Br. 11.
`
`25 Fin. Rej. 5.
`
`26 Su 1:49-56.
`
`27 Su 6:15-22.
`
`Patrick Maloney
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2014
`Page 6 of 14
`
`

`

`2012 Pat. App. LEXIS 2784, *10
`
`Page 6 of 13
`
`about 254 [mu] m (10 mils) to inhibit blockage of gases passing therethrough. The maximum width X of slot
`14, however, will be less than 762 [mu] m (30 mils), and preferably will be less than about 635 [mu] m (25 mils)
`to inhibit arcing.
`
`
`
`The examiner finds reason to modify the [*11] previous combination to attain an alternative, but equivalent,
`showerhead plate. The combination does not, however, teach elongated gas diffusion holes having depth equal
`to or greater than the width. 28
`
`
`
`Janakiraman
`
`Janakiraman teaches a gas distribution shower head with elongated slots. 29 For example, Janakiraman Figure
`4C (right) shows a face plate 316 with a plurality of continuous slots 318b of length L. and a plurality of discrete
`holes 318a of diameter X. Janakiraman teaches that having slots at least one-half the thickness of the face plate
`316 allows the face plate 316 to be close to the surface of a substrate without causing deposited materials to form
`spots or streaks. 30 Janakiraman teaches that a variety of configurations can be used to achieve the same
`advantage. 31 Figures 7A-7D (left) show bottom [*12] views of the face plate with slots in a variety of
`configurations, including concentric, radial, neither radial nor concentric and radial with holes. Apparently one
`skilled in the art would use routine experimentation to determine the best configuration.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Nishimoto
`
`Nishimoto teaches a plasma processing system shown in a figure (right) with a grounded shower head 14
`facing [*13] a semiconductor wafer W. The examiner finds that one skilled in the art would have inferred that the
`shower head is metal from the fact that it is grounded. 32 According to the examiner, Nishimoto teaches a porous
`
`28 Fin. Rej. 5-6.
`
`29 Janakiraman 2:33-36.
`
`30 Janakiraman 5:2-12.
`
`31 Janakiraman 5:62-6:8.
`
`Patrick Maloney
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2014
`Page 7 of 14
`
`

`

`2012 Pat. App. LEXIS 2784, *13
`
`Page 7 of 13
`
`plate 20 at the rear face of the shower plate 14, gas diffusion holes 15 formed in the shower plate 14. The
`holes 15 penetrate the across the thickness of the shower plate 14 and are all covered by the porous plate 20.
`The examiner further finds that Nishimoto discloses a pore diameter of 100 [mu] m to 1000 [mu] m in the porous
`body 20. The examiner further finds that Nishimoto discloses a high frequency field formed between the shower
`head 14, which is the upper electrode, and a mounting base 2, which is a lower electrode attached to a power
`source 7.
`
`
`
`Fink
`
`Fink teaches a plasma processing system. 33 [*14] Figure 6 (right) shows a cross-sectional view of one
`embodiment. 34 A top plate 60A has a gas inlet 61. A bottom plate 60B has a shower-head injection plate 63. A
`honeycomb baffle core 65 is located inside the plenum distribution chamber 62 formed by the plates. 35 A
`honeycomb baffle panel 65A can be formed so it is thicker in the center under the gas inlet 62 and thinner at the
`periphery to promote uniform gas distribution. 36 Similarly, as shown in Figure 13 (left), the panel 65A can be
`denser 78A under the gas inlet 61 and less dense 78C at the periphery. As with thickness, density under the gas
`inlet promotes more even gas distribution throughout the plenum 62. 37
`
`
`
` [*15]
`
`Lee
`
`Lee explains that it had been previously known in the semiconductor fabrication art to use a baffle plate 100 to
`evenly distribute plasma across a wafer. 38 The center of the baffle plate 100 had a porous region 204, as shown
`in Figure 3 (right), as well as a solid annular region 208 surrounding the porous region 204. 39 The porous region
`
`32 Fin. Rej. 7.
`
`33 Fink P 0002.
`
`34 Fink P 0016.
`
`35 Fink PP 0042-0044.
`
`36 Fink PP 0049-0051.
`
`37 Fink PP 0063-0064.
`
`38 Lee 2:5-7.
`
`39 Lee 2:22-24.
`
`Patrick Maloney
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2014
`Page 8 of 14
`
`

`

`2012 Pat. App. LEXIS 2784, *15
`
`Page 8 of 13
`
`204 could extend into the periphery or the annular region could be solid and be used to support the baffle plate
`110. 40
`
`
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`Observation on multiplicity of references
`
`As an initial matter, Orbotech's suggestion that the number of references is a factor weighing against obviousness
`is misplaced. It [*16] is well established that the issue is not the number of references, but what they would have
`collectively meant to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention. In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986 (Fed.
`Cir. 1991). Indeed, a multitude of references might easily suggest a crowded art in which minor variations are
`expected. As a practical matter, however, each additional reference represents at least one additional difference for
`which the examiner must account and thus an additional instance where the examiner might have prejudicially
`erred.
`
`Claim 1
`
`Orbotech argues that Suzuki does not disclose a shower plate that is metal, has a flange and has elongated
`holes and that it also fails to disclose a porous plate. 41 The examiner relies on other references to supply these
`teachings. Orbotech contends that it would be improper to create a shower plate from the teachings of Srivastava
`and Oshima and substitute it for Suzuki's shower plate. There is no per se rule, however, against such a
`substitution.
`
` [*17]
`
`Orbotech argues that Suzuki and Oshima are directed to different problems. Suzuki notes a problem with particle
`contaminants and speculates that the contaminants form upstream in the evaporation system 50, the vapor
`delivery system 40 or the vapor distribution system 30. 42 Orbotech points to one embodiment in which the
`problem is addressed by maximizing flow through the particle diffusers 47a-47c, 43 which Orbotech contends
`would be inconsistent with substituting a porous plate. As the examiner notes, however, Suzuki teaches other
`embodiments, including embodiments in which the diffusers minimize passage of oversized particles. 44
`
`40 Lee 2:28-32.
`
`41 Br. 10.
`
`42 Br. 11, citing Suzuki P 0050.
`
`43 Suzuki P 0052.
`
`44 Suzuki PP 0050-0052.
`
`Patrick Maloney
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2014
`Page 9 of 14
`
`

`

`2012 Pat. App. LEXIS 2784, *17
`
`Page 9 of 13
`
`Orbotech argues that one skilled in the art would not use both the shower plate of Suzuki and the porous plate of
`Oshima because they are performing similar functions so one would substitute Oshima's plate for Suzuki's plate.
`As the examiner notes, however, Suzuki contemplates [*18] using diffusers for screening particles before they
`reach the shower plate. In the examiner's contemplated combination, Oshima's porous plate is more analogous
`to Suzuki's final diffuser than it is to Suzuki's shower head. The examiner's proposed modification is facially
`reasonable inasmuch as Nishimoto shows a similar combination of a porous plate behind a shower plate.
`
`Orbotech argues that the examiner's rationale for the combination--uniform gas distribution--is implausible because
`the porous plate would be clogged. Orbotech misapprehends the combination. First, as discussed above, there
`are many ways to solve the contamination problem. The fact that Nishimoto reaches a similar solution suggests that
`those in the art would not have viewed the examiner's solution as implausible. Second, the examiner relies on
`Oshima principally for its express teaching of an appropriate pore size (20-30 [mu] m).
`
`Orbotech argues that it would not have been obvious to modify the holes in the shower plate, as Su teaches, to
`prevent blockage given that the contaminants in Suzuki are coming from upstream and will block the porous plate
`instead. We have already considered the porous-plate blockage argument. [*19] Su addresses a contamination
`issue on the wafer/ reaction-chamber side. Thus, Suzuki's problem with upstream contaminants (and Orbotech's
`related arguments) are not relevant to the independent contamination problem that Su solves. The examiner's
`rationale that one skilled in the art might simultaneously take advantage of the independent solutions to
`independent problems is entirely reasonable.
`
`Orbotech argues that the examiner is unreasonable in suggesting that inserting a porous plate upstream in
`Suzuki would not be a problem since a cleaning system could be used. Orbotech argues that one skilled in the art
`would not introduce a cleaning system to solve a problem that Suzuki had already solved without a cleaning
`system. This argument appears to misapprehend both the Suzuki teachings and the proposed combination.
`Foremost, Suzuki itself teaches the optional use of an upstream cleaning system, 45 not the examiner. Second,
`as discussed above, Suzuki itself teaches many ways to solve the contamination problem, including the use of
`upstream diffusers. Finally, as discussed above, the examiner's proposed combination uses the porous plate in
`lieu of Suzuki's final diffuser.
`
` [*20]
`
`Orbotech explains that the intended use of its invention is "for depositing an insulator made of hard to ionize gas,
`such as silicon nitride", 46 but does not show where this intention is reflected in the claim language. The examiner
`has provided reasons based in the teachings of the art for producing a shower head within the scope of claim 1.
`
`Claim 2
`
`45 Suzuki P 0058.
`
`46 Br. 13.
`
`Patrick Maloney
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2014
`Page 10 of 14
`
`

`

`2012 Pat. App. LEXIS 2784, *20
`
`Page 10 of 13
`
`Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further requires that "the gas diffusion holes are elongate holes having width
`to depth ratio of 1:1 to 1:10." Orbotech argues that Janakiraman teaches a "the length of the holes to thickness of
`the faceplate" rather than the claimed width: depth ratio. 47 Janakiraman prefers a length to thickness ratio of at
`least 1:2. As shown in Janakiraman Figure 4C (reproduced above), the length L is a width of the slot. The
`thickness of the face plate is necessarily the depth of a hole in a shower plate. Thus, the difference between the
`ratios appears to be one of nomenclature. Janakiraman's preferred ratio (used to avoid spots [*21] and streaking)
`falls within the claimed range.
`
`The examiner offers calculations showing possible ratios, but the values used to make the calculations are
`speculative and thus not very persuasive.
`
`Both the examiner and Orbotech appear to treat Janakiraman's slot length as being relevant to a hole width. Su
`teaches the desirability of using elongated holes (which look like some of Janakiraman's slot embodiments) to
`avoid hole blockage. Since Janakiraman's slot-length ratio solves a different problem (spotting and streaking), one
`skilled in the art would have wanted to preserve the slot-length ratio for the elongated holes-width ratio.
`
`Claim 11
`
`Claim 11 is an independent claim. Orbotech focuses on a limitation not found in claim 1, 48 requiring "plasma for
`forming the film on the workpiece is generated between said showerhead and the workpiece by applying RF waves
`therebetween". 49 Orbotech notes that Suzuki does not generate a plasma at the work site; rather, it evaporates
`metal precursors upstream, [*22] so it would not make sense to modify the Suzuki/Srivastava/Su combination with
`the plasma system of Nishimoto. The examiner argues that how the device is to be used does not control what
`one skilled in the art would understand from the teaching and, in any case, Suzuki uses a plasma system for
`cleaning so it would be readily adapted to a plasma use. 50 Since the combination includes Su, it is worth noting
`that Su is also part of the plasma system where the plate is one electrode and wafer support is the other
`electrode: 51
`To assist in etching or deposition, a plasma is often ignited in the chamber between the gas distribution plate
`and the wafer, for example, by electrically connecting the gas distribution plate to an RF power source, while
`grounding the metal walls of the chamber, as well as the wafer support on which the wafer rests during such
`processing.
`Su and Nishimoto indicate that this arrangement is well-known in the art. 52
`
`47 Br. 14.
`
`48 In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (focus on contested limitation).
`
`49 Br. 15. "RF" abbreviates "radio frequency", Spec. 1:6-11.
`
`50 Ans. 41-42.
`
`51 Su 1:26-32.
`
`Patrick Maloney
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2014
`Page 11 of 14
`
`

`

`2012 Pat. App. LEXIS 2784, *22
`
`Page 11 of 13
`
` [*23]
`
`Claim 13
`
`Claim 13 depends from claim 1 and further requires that "the gas diffusion holes are elongate holes having width
`to length ratio of 1:2 to 1:20." Orbotech focuses on the "elongate" requirement of the claim. The argument and
`analysis are the same as they were for claim 1. There is no contradiction between using a porous plate in Suzuki
`and also elongating the holes. They address different contaminant problems (one upstream, one downstream) so
`there is no contradiction in addressing both.
`
`Claim 16
`
`Claim 16 depends from claim 11 and further requires "the gas diffusion holes are elongate holes having width to
`length ratio of 1:2 to 1:20." The argument and analysis are the same as they were for claim 2.
`
`Claims 3 and 4
`
`Claims 3 and 4 depend from claim 1 and further require:
`
`3. … a thickness of said porous plate is thicker in a high gas-density area of a gas introduction space, which
`is formed on the rear side of said [*24] shower head, and
`the amount of gas permeation through the gas diffusion holes is uniform across said entire showerhead.
`4. … [the] density of said porous plate is higher in a high gas-density area of a gas introduction space than
`the density at the perimeter of the porous plate, and
`the amount of gas permeation through the gas diffusion holes is uniform across said entire showerhead.
`
`The examiner relies on Fink for both the shape and density teachings as promoting uniform gas distribution.
`Orbotech argues that it would make no sense to reject the honeycomb solution of Suzuki in favor of the porous
`plate of Oshima, but then revert to a honeycomb solution to improve gas distribution. 53 Orbotech misapprehends
`the rejection. The relevant teaching in Fink is that shape and density can improve gas distribution. Whether the
`thing being modified is a porous plate or a honeycomb baffle does not alter the relevance of Fink's basic teaching.
`
`Claim 5
`
`Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and further requires that [*25] the "porous plate has a perimeter section, which
`surrounds a gas diffusion hole area, and the perimeter section is not gas permeable." The examiner relies on
`Larson and Lee to teach a porous plate with a gas-impermeable periphery. Lee teaches that such a plate was a
`known option in the prior art. Orbotech argues that the baffle plate that Lee describes from the prior art is not a
`porous plate, but rather a backing plate. Orbotech does not explain this distinction, provide a basis for the
`
`52 In re Meinhardt, 392 F.2d 273, 280 (CCPA 1968) (reference good for all it teaches) .
`
`53 Br. 16-17.
`
`Patrick Maloney
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2014
`Page 12 of 14
`
`

`

`2012 Pat. App. LEXIS 2784, *25
`
`Page 12 of 13
`
`distinction in Lee, or explain the relevance of the distinction to the rejection. The examiner's understanding of Lee's
`teaching is consistent with the plain language of the background section in the Lee patent.
`
`Orbotech also argues that there would have been no reason to modify Suzuki in view of Lee because Suzuki must
`already have some means of support. Suzuki has a gas diffuser rather than a porous plate per se. In any case,
`the means of support is not explicit in Suzuki. The examiner relies on Lee to show that one known way to solve the
`problem of supporting a baffle/ porous/ gas-diffuser plate was to leave a portion of it solid for use as a supporting
`structure.
`
`Since Lee provides ample support [*26] for the added limitation of claim 5, we do not reach the rejection using
`Larson. 54
`
`Claims not separately argued
`
`Orbotech has not separately argued for reversal of the rejection based on Suzuki, Srivastava, Oshima,
`Janakiraman and Nishimoto except as indicated above. Consequently, these claims stand or fall with their
`respective parent claims.
`
`Alternative rejections
`
`The examiner has also advanced a rationale for rejecting the claims based on a different arrangement of a subset
`of the same references. Since the first rejection was sufficient, it is not necessary to reach another rejection using
`essentially the same teachings. It has long been the law that the order of the references is not critical, 55 which
`makes sense since one skilled in the art would have been interested in what the references taught collectively 56
`without [*27] regard to how a hypothetical examiner might someday order them.
`
`HOLDING
`
`Orbotech has not shown prejudicial error in the final rejection of Orbotech claims 1-6, 11 and 13-17 so the rejection
`is--
`
`AFFIRMED
`
`USPTO Bd of Patent Appeals & Interferences; Patent Trial & Appeal Bd Decs.
`
`54 In re Garfinkel, 437 F.2d 1005, 1008 [168 USPQ 662] (CCPA 1971) (declining to reach rejection using a different primary
`reference).
`
`55 Cf. In re Cochran, 374 F.2d 1017, 1022 (CCPA 1967) (affirming rejection where the order had been switched).
`
`56 Meinhardt, 392 F.2d at 280.
`
`Patrick Maloney
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2014
`Page 13 of 14
`
`

`

`2012 Pat. App. LEXIS 2784, *27
`
`Page 13 of 13
`
`End of Document
`
`Patrick Maloney
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2014
`Page 14 of 14
`
`