Ex Parte FUKUHARA et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 8, 2015

12768317 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121768,317 04/27/2010
22919 7590 12/10/2015
GLOBAL IP COUNSELORS, LLP
David Tarnoff
1233 20TH STREET, NW, SUITE 700
Suite 700
WASHINGTON, DC 20036-2680
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kenji FUKUHARA
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
MD-US100250 5378
EXAMINER
STARK, JARRETT J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2823
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/10/2015 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):
mailpto@giplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENJI FUKUHARA, SEIJI SHIMIZU,
and KOUJI YAMAMOTO
Appeal2014-000859
Application 12/768,317
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, MARK NAGUMO, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1---6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
The Invention
The Appellants claim a laser machining method and apparatus.
Claims 1 and 6 are illustrative:
1. A laser machining method for directing laser light
along a scribe-scheduled line on a surface of a brittle material
substrate and forming a scribe groove, the laser machining
method comprising:
directing pulse laser light onto a surface of a brittle
material substrate; and
Appeal2014-000859
Application 12/768,317
Sercel
scanning the pulse laser light along a scribe-scheduled
line,
the laser intensity of the pulse laser light being
1.0 x 108 W/cm2 or greater and 1.0 x 1010 W/cm2 or less,
the value obtained by multiplying the amount of heat
input measured in J/cm2 by the linear expansion coefficient
measured in 10-7/K of the brittle material being in a range of
3 000 or greater and 100000 or less, and
the number of pulses within a square circumscribing the
condensed light diameter of the pulse laser light being two or
greater.
6. A laser machining apparatus for directing laser light
along a scribe-scheduled line on a surface of a brittle material
substrate and forming a scribe groove, the laser machining
apparatus comprising:
a laser irradiation mechanism having a laser oscillator to
transmit pulse laser light and a light-condensing optical
mechanism to condense and to direct the transmitted pulse laser
light; and
a movement mechanism to move the laser irradiation
mechanism relative to the surface of the brittle material
substrate along the scribe-scheduled line,
the laser intensity of the pulse laser light being
1.0 x 108 W/cm2 or greater and 1.0 x 1010 W/cm2 or less,
the value obtained by multiplying the amount of heat
input (J/cm2) by the linear expansion coefficient (10-7/K) of the
brittle material being in a range of 3000 or greater and 100000
or less, and
the number of pulses within a square circumscribing the
condensed light diameter of the pulse laser light being two or
greater.
The Reference
US 2008/0242056 Al
2
Oct. 2, 2008
Appeal2014-000859
Application 12/768,317
The Rejection
Claims 1---6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sercel.
OPINION
We affirm the rejection.
The Appellants do not separately argue the dependent claims
(App. Br. 13). We therefore limit our discussion to the independent claims,
i.e., claims 1 and 6. Claims 2-5, which depend from claim 1, stand or fall
with that claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2011).
Claim 1
Sercel discloses "a system and method for forming a variable
astigmatic focal beam spot using solid-state lasers with an anamorphic beam
delivery system to scribe semiconductor wafers" (i-f 2). Sercel teaches that
using conventional techniques, "brittle substrates, such as GaP and GaAs,
also show low productivity due to excessive edge chipping by the
mechanical scribe and break and the saw dicing processes" (i-f 4 ). 1 Sercel
uses UV solid-state lasers with short wavelength and pulse duration to
"create extremely high irradiance, e.g., over 109 W/cm2, resulting in
instantaneous vaporization by photonic bombardment" (i-fi-f 12, 34 ). Sercel
teaches that an important characteristic of a focused laser beam is "optimum
laser intensity (usually expressed by the laser energy density J/cm2) for a
target material" (i-f 14) and that "[t]he overflow of laser energy density can
1 The Appellants state that by using their method, "defects and cracking in
the machined end surface of the brittle material substrate are minimized, and
a high end surface strength can be preserved" (Spec. i-f l 0) and that "a high
post-machining end-surface strength can be preserved, even in cases in
which abrasion machining is performed by pulse laser light on a glass
substrate or another brittle material substrate" (Spec. i120).
3
Appeal2014-000859
Application 12/768,317
result in detrimental thermal damage to the target, and the lack of laser
energy density can cause improper ablation or other undesired results"
(if 53).
The Appellants assert that in Sercel's example wherein a sapphire
substrate is scribed (iii! 56-57), the heat input is below that required by the
Appellants' claims (App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 3).
Sercel is not limited to its examples. See In re Fracalossi, 681 F .2d
792, 794 n.1(CCPA1982); In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651(CCPA1972).
Instead, all disclosures therein must be evaluated for what they would have
fairly suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boe, 355 F.2d
961, 965 (CCPA 1966). Sercel indicates that the substrate need not be
sapphire but, rather, can be other brittle semiconductor wafer materials such
as GaP and GaAs (iii! 4, 65). Sercel (iii! 14, 53), like the Appellant,
optimizes the laser energy density (heat input, J/cm2) for the target material
to minimize the target's chipping or cracking such that its high end-surface
strength is maintained, and Sercel uses a laser irradiance (over 109 W/cm2)
(if 12) which can be within the Appellants' recited range (108 - 1010 W/cm2).
Hence, the record indicates that routine optimization of Sercel's method for
scribing the same brittle material scribed using the Appellants' method
would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to essentially the same heat
input used by the Appellants.
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6 the Appellants merely assert that "[ c ]laim 6 is a
device claim which requires similar elements" as claim 1 (App. Br. 12).
4
Appeal2014-000859
Application 12/768,317
Sercel' s apparatus is capable of scribing using a laser intensity (over
109 W/cm2) (i-f 12) within the Appellants' recited range (108 - 1010 W/cm2).
The recited brittle material is not a component which imparts structure to the
apparatus. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
For the above reasons we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
rejection.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sercel is
affirmed.
It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
sl
5