Ex Parte Okabe et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2015

10596653 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TAKEO OKABE and HIROHITO MIYASHITA

____________

Appeal 2013-002696
Application 10/596,653
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CHUNG K.PAK, TERRY J. OWENS, and
JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 7 through 11, 13 and 15 through 26. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants’ invention is generally directed to a copper target and a
copper alloy backing plate assembly for use in magnetron sputtering. App.
Br. 3–4. Claims 1, 15 and 17 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal
and are reproduced below:
1. A target and backing plate assembly for use in
magnetron sputtering, comprising a copper or copper alloy
target having a back face and a copper alloy backing plate
Appeal 2013-002696
Application 10/596,653

2
bonded directly to said back face, the copper alloy backing
plate being formed from an alloy of which an element forming
a majority of the alloy is Cu and being selected from a group
consisting of low beryllium copper alloy containing 0.2 to
0.5wt% of Be, Cu-Ni-Si containing 2 to 4wt% of Ni and 0.3 to
0.9wt% of Si, and Cu-Ni-Si-based alloy containing 2 to 4wt%
of Ni and 0.3 to 0.9wt% of Si.

15. A target and backing plate assembly for use in
magnetron sputtering, comprising a copper or copper alloy
target having a back face and a backing plate diffusion bonded
directly to said back face of said target, said backing plate being
made of a low beryllium copper alloy containing 0.2 to 0.5wt%
of Be.

17. A target and backing plate assembly for use in
magnetron sputtering, comprising a copper or copper alloy
target diffusion bonded directly to a copper alloy backing plate,
the copper alloy backing plate being made of a Cu-Ni-Si alloy
containing 2 to 4wt% of Ni and 0.3 to 0.9wt% of Si and in
which Cu forms a majority of the alloy.

The Examiner relied on the following references in rejecting the
appealed subject matter:
Zhang US 6,619,537 Bl Sep. 16, 2003
Ishikura JP 1-180976 A July 18, 1989
Fukuda JP 3-079734 A Apr. 4, 1991
Honjo JP 10-168532 A Jun. 23, 1998

Murray W. Mahoney et al., Fundamentals of Diffusion
Bonding, in ASM Handbook, Vol. 6, Welding, Brazing, and
Soldering, 1993, pp. 156–159 (David L. Olson et al. eds.,
1993).

Appeal 2013-002696
Application 10/596,653

3
Appellants (App. Br. 4–5; Reply Br. 4–5) request review of the
following rejections from the Examiner’s Final Office Action and
Examiner’s Answer:
I. Claims 1, 2, 7–11, 13, 17–23 and 26 rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zhang, ASM Handbook, Fukuda and
Honjo.
II. Claims 1, 2, 7–11, 13, 17–23 and 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Zhang, Fukuda and Honjo.
III. Claims 15, 16, 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zhang, ASM Handbook and Ishikura.
IV. Claims 15, 16, 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zhang and Ishikura.
V. Claim 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Zhang, ASM Handbook, Ishikura and Honjo.
VI. Claim 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Zhang, Ishikura and Honjo
Appeal 2013-002696
Application 10/596,653

4
OPINION1
Prior Art Rejections of Independent Claims 1 and 17
(Rejections I and II)2

Appellants’ invention is directed to a target and backing plate
assembly comprising a copper or copper alloy target directly bonded to a
copper alloy backing plate and where the copper alloy of the backing plate is
selected from a group consisting of Cu-Ni-Si containing 2 to 4wt% of nickel
and 0.3 to 0.9wt% of Si, and Cu-Ni-Si-based alloy containing 2 to 4wt% of
nickel and 0.3 to 0.9wt% of silicon with the majority of the alloy being
copper. Claims 1, 17.3
The Examiner found Zhang discloses a sputter target assembly
comprising high purity copper alloy sputter target diffusion bonded directly
to a copper alloy backing plate. Ans. 4; Zhang Fig. 1; Abstract; col. 1, ll. 56–
67; col. 2, ll. 1–21. The Examiner found Zhang does not disclose a specific
copper alloy for the backing plate that also includes nickel. Ans. 4–5. The

1 In the Answer, the Examiner maintained the rejections presented in the
Final Office Action. Ans. 9–13. The Examiner also instituted similar new
grounds of rejections further incorporating the ASM Handbook as an
additional reference for describing known techniques of diffusion bonding
copper substrates. Ans. 4–8. A discussion of the newly cited ASM
Handbook is unnecessary for disposition of this appeal. Our opinion focuses
on Appellants’ arguments as presented in the Reply Brief entered December
14, 2012 in addressing all rejections presented on appeal.

2 Appellants rely on the same arguments in addressing independent claims 1
and 17 together. App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 5. Accordingly, we limit our
discussion to the independent claims.

3 We limit our consideration of these claims to the embodiments directed to
the Cu-Ni-Si alloys. The embodiment directed to the low beryllium copper
alloy is addressed separately in our discussion of independent claim 15.
Appeal 2013-002696
Application 10/596,653

5
Examiner found Fukuda discloses a copper alloy for a backing plate in a
sputtering apparatus where the copper alloy comprises 0.05 to 0.8%
chromium or 0.001 to 0.5% magnesium, 0.01 to 0.3% silicon, and the
balance copper. Ans. 4; Fukuda Abstract. The Examiner found Fukuda
discloses this alloy as reducing deformation due to thermal strains, permit
repeated use, and improving the heat conductivity. Ans. 4; Fukuda Abstract.
With respect to the nickel content, the Examiner found Honjo teaches a
copper alloy for a backing plate comprising 1.0% nickel, 0.01 % cobalt,
0.005% phosphorus, and the balance copper where the use of nickel provides
excellent machinability, thermal conductivity, and thermal resistance. Ans.
5, Honjo Abstract. The Examiner found that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to use the specified copper alloy weight
percentages of Fukuda for Zhang’s backing plate with Honjo’s nickel
content added to it for the benefits disclosed by Fukuda and Honjo. Ans. 5.
Appellants argue if the copper alloys of Fukuda and Honjo were
combined as suggested by the Examiner, the result would have been a
combination that is compositionally different from the claimed invention.
Reply Br. 8–9. Specifically, Appellants argue Honjo does not teach the
claimed nickel content. Id. at 9. Appellants further argue the effect nickel
has in the copper alloy of Honjo would have only been expected by one of
ordinary skill in the art with the specific composition of the copper alloy
actually disclosed in Honjo. Id. Thus, Appellants assert there is no
motivation from the teachings of Honjo to incorporate nickel, in amounts
required by the claimed invention, into Fukuda’s copper alloy for use as the
backing plate for Zhang. Id.
Appeal 2013-002696
Application 10/596,653

6
We agree with Appellants. As noted by Appellants, Honjo discloses a
copper alloy having 1.0% nickel content, which is not encompassed by the
claimed range of 2–4% nickel. Reply Br. 9. Even if one of ordinary skill in
the art were to modify Fukuda alloy composition to incorporate nickel to
obtain the advantages of Honjo as suggested by the Examiner (Ans. 4–5),
the result would not have been the alloys required by the claimed invention
due to the insufficient amount of nickel.
The Examiner reasons Honjo’s disclosure of 1% nickel content is
close enough to 2% nickel such that the alloy compositions having either
1% nickel or 2% nickel would have been expected to have similar
properties. (Ans. 16–17). However, the Examiner has not identified the
properties in Honjo that are associated with 1% nickel or has not shown why
doubling the amount of the nickel content in the alloy is expected to produce
the same or similar properties associated with 1% nickel. On this record, the
Examiner has not adequately shown why a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have been led to further modify Honjo’s alloy composition via
doubling the amount of nickel actually suggested by Honjo.
Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the Examiner has
met the minimum threshold of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir.
1992); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In
re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Accordingly, we reverse the
Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1, 2, 7–11, 13, 17–23 and 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Rejections I and II) for the reasons presented by
Appellants and given above.
Appeal 2013-002696
Application 10/596,653

7
Prior Art Rejections of Independent Claim 15
(Rejections III and IV)

After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and
the Examiner, we also REVERSE the rejections of claims 15, 16, 24 for the
reasons presented by Appellants.
Independent claim 15 is directed to a target and backing plate
assembly where the copper alloy of the backing plate is made of a low
beryllium copper alloy containing 0.2 to 0.5wt% of beryllium. Claim 15.
The Examiner relied on Zhang as discussed in the prior rejection. Ans. 6–7.
The Examiner found Zhang does not disclose the claimed low beryllium
copper alloy. Id. at 7. The Examiner found Ishikura discloses the addition of
beryllium to a backing plate produces a significant cooling effect from
satisfactory heat conductivity and inhibits the diffusion of copper. Ans. 7;
Ishikura Abstract. The Examiner found it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate beryllium in the copper alloy
backing plate of Zhang for the benefits disclosed by Ishikura. Ans. 7.
Appellants argue that Ishikura teaches a target/backing plate assembly
in which beryllium or another element is added to the backing plate to the
backing plate to inhibit bonding or diffusion bonding to the target and
prevent thermal compression bonding of the backing plate with the target
because Ishikura desires the backing plate to be easily detached from a
copper target after use in a sputtering operation. App. Br. 17–18. Ishikura
Abstract, Figures 1, 3. Appellants argue that this is contrary to Zhang. Id.
We again agree with Appellants. Reply Br. 15–16. Given that
Ishikura discloses the addition of beryllium functions to inhibit copper
diffusion between a target and a backing plate (Ishikura Abstract) and Zhang
Appeal 2013-002696
Application 10/596,653

8
teaches forming a target backing plate assembly that requires diffusion
bonding (Zhang col. 1, l. 62–col. 2, l. 8), the Examiner has not proffered
sufficient evidence to show that one skilled in the art would have been led to
modify the copper alloy composition of Zhang’s backing plate via
incorporating beryllium. On this record, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have reasonably expected that the addition of beryllium for the reason
supplied by Ishikura would have a detrimental effect on Zhang’s desired
diffusion bonding.
Accordingly, we also reverse we reverse the Examiner’s prior art
rejections of claims 15, 16 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Rejections III
and IV) for the reasons presented by Appellants and given above.
Prior Art Rejections of Dependent Claim 25
(Rejections V and VI)

The Examiner separately rejected dependent claim 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Zhang, ASM Handbook, Ishikura and Honjo
(Rejection V)(Ans. 7–8) and under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Zhang, Ishikura and Honjo (Rejection VI)(Final Act. 5–6).
Claim 25 requires a total Ni and Co content of 2.1 wt. %.
The Examiner relies on Honjo as teaching a copper alloy comprising
0.01 to 1.0% Co and 1.0% Ni that is excellent machinability, thermal
conductivity, and thermal resistance. Ans. 8; Honjo Abstract. However,
Honjo is not relied upon by the Examiner to overcome the above noted
deficiency of the combined teachings of Zhang and Ishikura regarding the
incorporation of Be into the copper alloy for the backing plate.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejections (Rejections
V and VI) for the reasons given above.
Appeal 2013-002696
Application 10/596,653

9
ORDER
The prior art rejections of claims 1, 2, 7–11, 13 and 15–26 under 35
U.S.C. 103(a) are reversed.

REVERSED

APJ Initials:
JTS
TJO
CKP

Klh