Ex Parte Garg et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 16, 201211284193 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 16, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/284,193 11/21/2005 Diwakar Garg 06767 USA 6620 23543 7590 02/16/2012 AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC. PATENT DEPARTMENT 7201 HAMILTON BOULEVARD ALLENTOWN, PA 18195-1501 EXAMINER TUROCY, DAVID P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1717 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/16/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte DIWAKAR GARG, PHILIP BRUCE HENDERSON, DANIEL JOSEPH TEMPEL, THOMAS N. JACKSON and JIE SUN ____________ Appeal 2010-009037 Application 11/284,193 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before CHARLES F. WARREN, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-009037 Application 11/284,193 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 18-33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We REVERSE. Appellants claim a method for depositing a doped zinc oxide upon a substrate which includes the step of combining at least one organometallic zinc compound, at least one diluent, carbon dioxide and least one fluorine or boron dopant to form a reactive composition wherein the ratio of carbon dioxide to said at least one organometallic zinc compound is at least about 8.0 and the reactive composition is substantially free of water and oxygen (claim 1). According to Appellants’ Specification, the claimed combination of the organometallic zinc compound and CO2 does not prematurely react at ambient temperatures. Spec. ¶ [0017]. Representative claim 1 reads as follows: 1. A method for depositing a doped zinc oxide upon a substrate comprising: combining at least one organometallic zinc compound, at least one diluent, carbon dioxide and least one fluorine or boron dopant to form a reactive composition wherein the ratio of carbon dioxide to said at least one organometallic zinc compound is at least about 8.0 and the reactive composition is substantially free of water and oxygen, introducing the reactive composition into a deposition chamber, and; creating a plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition environment within the deposition chamber for a time and under conditions sufficient to deposit doped zinc oxide upon the substrate wherein the resistivity of the doped zinc oxide is less Appeal 2010-009037 Application 11/284,193 3 than about 0.01 ohm-cm and the transparency in the visible spectrum is at least about 80%. Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18-24 and 26-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fukuda1, Yamada2, Cantwell3, Li4, Vijayakumar5 and Haga6,7 We refer to the Examiner’s Answer for a statement of the Examiner’s rejection (Ans. 4-9) and add any additional findings of fact appearing below for emphasis. It is undisputed that Fukuda fails to deposit a doped zinc oxide layer over a substrate with the disclosed plasma enhanced chemical deposition process (PECVD). Ans. 4; App. Br. 12. The Examiner found that Cantwell teaches, in molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) vapor deposition, that zinc oxide may be doped using a process gas containing boron or fluoride via an RF plasma source. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have supplied dopant of boron or fluorine with the reactive composition of Fukuda with a reasonable expectation of success. Ans. 5-6. 1 JP 2000-303175 published Oct. 31, 2000. 2 US 5,545,443 issued Aug. 13, 1996. 3 US 2003/0146433 A1 issued Aug. 7, 2003. 4 B.S. Li et al., Growth of High Quality ZnO Thin Films at Low Temperature on Si(100) Substrates by Plasma Enhanced Chemical Vapor Deposition, 20 J. VACUUM SCI. TECH. A 265 (2002). 5 US 4,751,149 issued June 14, 1988. 6 K. Haga et al., ZnO Thin Films Prepared by Remote Plasma-Enhanced CVD Method, 214 J. CRYSTAL GROWTH 77 (2000). 7 We limit our discussion to Fukuda and Cantwell for this rejection. A discussion of the Yamada, Li, Vijayakumar and Haga references is unnecessary for disposition of this rejection. Appeal 2010-009037 Application 11/284,193 4 We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not provided adequate reasoning to modify the process of Fukuda in light of the teachings of Cantwell so as to combine an organometallic zinc compound, CO2 and a fluorine or boron dopant as required by the subject matter of claim 1. App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 3. As correctly argued by Appellants, Cantwell uses an MBE process to deposit a zinc oxide film that does not combine the reactive components as claimed. Ans. 13; Reply Br. 6. The Examiner has not adequately explained why one skilled in the art would look to Cantwell’s MBE process to modify Fukuda’s PECVD process to arrive to the claimed invention. On the contrary, the Examiner acquiesced to Appellants’ arguments concerning Cantwell’s MBE process, maintains the reasons for the combination without further clarification. Ans. 18-19. Under these circumstances, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18-24 and 26-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fukuda, Yamada, Cantwell, Li, Vijayakumar and Haga. Appeal 2010-009037 Application 11/284,193 5 Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18-24 and 26-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fukuda, Yamada, Kondo8, Li, Vijayakumar and Haga9 We again refer to the Examiner’s Answer for a statement of the Examiner’s rejection (Ans. 10-16) and add any additional findings of fact appearing below for emphasis. In this alternative rejection, the Examiner relies on Kondo instead of Cantwell to establish that a zinc oxide film may be doped with boron and reaches the same conclusion of obviousness discussed above. Ans. 11. We also agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not provided an adequate reasoning to modify the process of Fukuda in light of the teachings of Kondo so as to combine an organometallic zinc compound, CO2 and a fluorine or boron dopant as required by the subject matter of claim 1. App. Br. 31. As correctly argued by Appellants, Kondo uses a PECVD process to deposit a doped zinc oxide over a substrate that requires using N2O (id. at 30) and does not disclose the use of CO2 or any other oxidant for that purpose (id. at 31). Consequently, we agree with Appellants that Kondo’s disclosure is an insufficient guide to one skilled in the art to modify the process of Fukuda to achieve the subject matter of claim 1. Id.; Reply Br. 21. Under these circumstances, we also cannot sustain the Examiner’s 8 Kazuo Kondo et al., Transparent Conductive ZnO Thin Films Prepared by Plasma Enhanced CVD – Effect of Boron Dopant, 26 KAGAKU KOGAKU RONBUNSHU 309 (2000). 9 We limit our discussion to Fukuda and Kondo for this rejection. As in the prior rejection, a discussion of the Yamada, Li, Vijayakumar and Haga references is unnecessary for disposition of this rejection. Appeal 2010-009037 Application 11/284,193 6 rejection of claims 1, 3, 9-10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18-24 and 26-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fukuda, Yamada, Kondo, Li, Vijayakumar and Haga. Rejections of Claims 6, 25 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) The rejections of claims 6, 25 and 33 are based on the rejections discussed above further in view of Cheung10 and Gordon11. Cheung and Gordon were cited to meet the limitations specifically of claims 6, 25 and 33. Ans. 9-10, 16. We agree with Appellants that these references do not remedy the deficiencies of the prior rejections, (App. Br. 24, 40) and therefore, do not sustain the rejections of claims 6, 25 and 33 for the reasons given above. The decision of the Examiner is reversed. REVERSED bar 10 US 6,458,673 B1 issued Oct. 1, 2002. 11 US 4,990,286 issued Feb. 5, 1991. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation