11541984 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2013)

Ex Parte Simpson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 25, 2013

11541984 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2013)

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. 11/541,984 10/02/2006 Wayne R. Simpson 99-1908 3611 40758 7590 07/25/2013 DONALD J. PAGEL 586 NORTH FIRST STREET, SUITE 207 SAN JOSE, CA 95112 EXAMINER MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1756 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/25/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte WAYNE R. SIMPSON, RYAN A. SCATENA, THOMAS R. STEVENSON, and JAIME F. GUERRERO ________________ Appeal 2012-004862 Application 11/541,984 Technology Center 1700 ________________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, PETER F. KRATZ, and LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-004862 Application 11/541,984 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-21, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellants claim a sputtering target assembly and a method for making it. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method for attaching a cylindrical sputtering target to a backing tube comprising: a) using ultrasonic energy and indium to prepare an outside surface of a cylindrical backing tube and/or an inside surface of one or more cylindrical sputtering target sections for bonding; b) bringing the cylindrical backing tube and the one or more cylindrical sputtering target sections together so that the outside surface of the cylindrical backing tube and the inside surface of the one or more cylindrical sputtering target sections are adjacent to each other but separated by a space, with the one or more cylindrical sputtering target sections having a total length greater than thirty-six inches; c) filling the space with liquid indium while the backing tube is oriented in a vertical direction; and d) allowing the liquid indium to solidify, thereby forming an indium attachment layer that is sufficiently strong to keep the one or more cylindrical sputtering target sections attached to the cylindrical backing tube during a sputtering process. The References McLeod US 6,582,572 B2 Jun. 24, 2003 Wityak US 2004/0074770 A1 Apr. 22, 2004 Tonai (as translated) JP 63-235469 A Sep. 30, 1988 Miyazaki (as translated) JP 6-128738 A May 10, 1994 Uchiumi (as translated)1 JP 10-280137 A Oct. 20, 1998 1 The Examiner (Ans. 4) and the Appellants (Br. 19) refer to Uchiumi Kentaro as “Uchiumi”. For consistency, we likewise do so. Appeal 2012-004862 Application 11/541,984 3 The Rejections The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1- 9, 14-16 and 19-21 over McLeod in view of Miyazaki and Wityak, claims 10, 11, 13 and 17 over McLeod in view of Miyazaki ,Wityak and Uchiumi and claims 12 and 18 over McLeod in view of Miyazaki, Wityak and Tonai. OPINION We affirm the rejections. The Appellants argue the claims in the following groups: 1) claims 1- 4, 2) claims 5-18, and 3) 19-21 (Br. 16-25). We therefore limit our discussion to one claim in each group. i.e., claims 1, 5 and 19. The other claims in each group stand or fall with the claim we address. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007). McLeod places, around an elongated cylindrical cooling tube (210), a sputtering target in the form of annular metal rings (220), each metal being a constituent of an alloy to be formed from the target by sputtering (col. 2, ll. 16-19, 50-58). The rings can be held in place by clamping nuts (240) and “further bonded to the cooling tube using indium solder” (col.6, ll. 17-20, 32-33; Fig. 2). Wityak slips sputtering target segments (14, 14’) over a backing tube (16) until the sputtering target has any desired overall length, preferably approximately 1 foot to 4 meters, and mechanically holds the segments in place on the backing tube (¶¶ 0016, 0020). No chemical bonding is required, but spaces between the segments and between the segments and Appeal 2012-004862 Application 11/541,984 4 the backing tube can be filled with an adhesive which can be indium (¶¶ 0027, 0049). Miyazaki applies indium preliminary solder to a sputtering target (1) and a sputtering target backing plate (2), exposes the target and backing plate surfaces to ultrasonic energy from an ultrasonic soldering iron to break up and remove metal oxide film from the surfaces, and then solders the target to the backing plate using indium solder (¶¶ 0016, 0019). There is no particular restriction on the shapes of the target and the backing plate, and they can be cylindrical (¶ 0024). The Appellants argue that Miyazaki bonds only a flat target surface to a flat backing plate and that Miyazaki’s disclosure, regarding the target and the backing plate, that “both of the members can, for example, be rectangular plates, or their combined shape can be cylindrical or the like” (¶ 0024), when read in context, means that a flat surface of a cylindrical target can be bonded to a flat surface of a cylindrical backing plate (Br. 17- 18). Miyazaki’s disclosures that the target is soldered to the backing plate, there is no particular restriction on the target and backing plate’s shapes, and the combined shape of the target and the backing plate can be cylindrical (¶¶ 0019, 0024) would have indicated to one of ordinary skill in the art that the target/backing plate combination can comprise a target’s cylindrical surface soldered to a backing plate’s cylindrical surface. The Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have eliminated McLeod’s or Wityak’s mechanical fasteners such that the Appeal 2012-004862 Application 11/541,984 5 target is attached to the backing plate only by the indium (Br. 20-21; Reply Br. 2-3). The Appellants’ claim 1 requires that the indium attachment layer is sufficiently strong to keep the cylindrical target sections attached to the cylindrical backing tube during a sputtering process, but does not exclude additional attachment means such as mechanical fasteners. Because McLeod’s indium solder (col. 6, ll. 32-38) and Wityak’s indium adhesive (¶0027) are made of the same material as the Appellants’ indium attachment layer it appears that, like the Appellants’ indium attachment layer, McLeod’s indium solder and Wityak’s indium adhesive have the strength required by the Appellants’ claim 1. Compare In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391 (CCPA 1963) (“From the standpoint of patent law, a compound and all of its properties are inseparable; they are one and the same thing”). The Appellants argue that “the specific use of the word ‘curved’ further distinguishes claim 5 over Miyazaki because Miyazaki is dealing with the use of indium and ultrasound to bond a flat target surface to a flat backing plate surface” (Br. 22). Miyazaki’s suggested cylindrical target and backing plate (¶ 0024), due to being cylindrical, are curved. The Appellants argue that the claim 19 limitation that a gap exists between each adjacent cylindrical sputtering target section distinguishes the claimed target over McLeod in view of Miyazaki and Wityak because McLeod does not indicate that a gap exists between adjacent annular rings (Br. 23). Appeal 2012-004862 Application 11/541,984 6 That argument is deficient in that the Appellants are attacking McLeod individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Young, 403 F.2d 754, 757-58 (CCPA 1968). Wityak discloses indium adhesive- filled gaps between adjacent target sections (¶ 0027). Thus, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections. DECISION/ORDER The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-9, 14-16 and 19-21 over McLeod in view of Miyazaki and Wityak, claims 10, 11, 13 and 17 over McLeod in view of Miyazaki ,Wityak and Uchiumi and claims 12 and 18 over McLeod in view of Miyazaki, Wityak and Tonai are 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 tc