Ex Parte Tamagaki

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2017

12668914 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2017)

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.
12/668,914 01/13/2010 Hiroshi Tamagaki 352557US2PCT 9680
22850 7590 06/26/2017
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
BRAYTON, JOHN JOSEPH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1756
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2017 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):
patentdocket @ oblon. com
oblonpat @ oblon. com
tfarrell@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HIROSHI TAMAGAKI
Appeal 2016-000065
Application 12/668,914
Technology Center 1700
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 8—13 of Application 12/668,914
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Non-Final Act. (May 18, 2015).
Because at least one of Appellants’ claims has been rejected twice,
Appellant1 seeks reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
A hearing was held in this appeal on June 6, 2017. A transcript of the
hearing will be made part of the record in due course.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
1 Kobe Steel, Ltd. is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-000065
Application 12/668,914
BACKGROUND
The ’914 Application describes a sputtering apparatus having a
rotatable cylindrical target. Spec. 11. The sputtering apparatus described in
the ’914 Application’s Specification is said to make more efficient use of the
cylindrical target, thereby improving its service life. Id.
Claim 6 is representative of the ’914 Application’s claims and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief:
Claim 6. A sputtering apparatus for depositing deposition
particles on a surface of a substrate to form a film, the
deposition particles having been sputter-evaporated from a
surface of a target within sputtering gas introduced into a
vacuum chamber, the sputtering apparatus comprising:
a sputter evaporation source, said sputter evaporation
source having a cylindrical target, said cylindrical target having
a center axis and being disposed rotatably about the center axis,
and a magnetic field generating member disposed inside said
cylindrical target and in a direction parallel to the center axis of
said cylindrical target;
an auxiliary electrode structure lacking a cylindrical
target, said auxiliary electrode structure having an auxiliary
electrode member disposed opposingly in parallel or
approximately in parallel with said cylindrical target in said
sputter evaporation source and an auxiliary magnetic field
generating member including a magnet and attached to said
auxiliary electrode member, wherein said magnetic field
generating member has a magnetic pole facing the inner surface
of the cylindrical target, and wherein the magnetic poles of said
magnetic field generating member and said auxiliary magnetic
field generating member face one another and have mutually
opposite polarities; and
a sputter power source for the supply of discharge
electric power to at least said cylindrical target in said sputter
evaporation source with said cylindrical target as a cathode,
wherein said magnetic field generating member provided
in said sputter evaporation source and said auxiliary magnetic
2
Appeal 2016-000065
Application 12/668,914
field generating member generate a magnetic field having
magnetic lines of force which reach the surface of the target of
the sputter evaporation source, wherein the facing magnetic
poles of said magnetic field generating member and said
auxiliary magnetic field generating member are located only at
a single predetermined side of a connecting line connecting the
center axis of said cylindrical target and a part of said auxiliary
magnetic field generating member other than said magnetic
pole, said substrate also being located at said predetermined
side of said connecting line, whereby the magnetic lines of
force swell toward said substrate at said predetermined side..
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 6, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Hollars2 and Lehan.3 Non-
Final Act. 3.
2. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Hollars and Wityak.4 Non-
Final Act. 11.
3. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Hollars, Lehan, and Wityak. Non-Final
Act. 14.
2 US 6,488,824 Bl, issued December 3, 2002.
3 US 5,814,195, issued September 29, 1998.
4 US 2004/0074770 Al, published April 22, 2004.
3
Appeal 2016-000065
Application 12/668,914
DISCUSSION
Appellant presents separate arguments for each of the ’914
Application’s independent claims. We address each of these claims
seriatim.
Claim 6. The Examiner rejected claim 6 as unpatentable over the
combination of Hollars and Lehan. Non-Final Act. 3. In the rejection, the
Examiner proposes modifying the sputtering apparatus depicted in Hollars’
Figure 15. Id. Figure 15 is reproduced below.
4
Appeal 2016-000065
Application 12/668,914
Figure 15 depicts a planar cross-sectional view of an apparatus with three
magnetrons 100a, 1006, and 100c. Hollars col. 11,11. 65—67. In this
apparatus, cylindrical magnetrons 100a and 1006 are substantially equally
distant from substrate 4 and symmetrically opposed. Id. at col. 23,11. 23—28.
The third magnetron, 100c, is equidistant from each of 100a and 1006, and
is opposite and further away from substrate 4. Id. The Examiner proposes
modifying this sputtering apparatus by replacing the cylindrical target of
either magnetron 100a or magnetron 1006 with an electrically conductive
element as shown in Lehan’s Figure 5 while leaving the magnetron’s
magnetic field generating element (either 36'a or 36'6) in place. Non-Final
Act. 6.
Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 6 should be reversed
because the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness.
Appeal Br. 6—10. In particular, Appellant argues that the Examiner erred by
finding that the combination of Hollars and Lehan describes or suggests
(1) a pair of magnetic field generating members oriented such that the
magnetic lines of force swell toward the substrate, (2) the claimed auxiliary
electrode structure lacking a cylindrical target but including an auxiliary
magnetic field generating member, and (3) misapplying the doctrine of
“teaching away.” Id. at 7—10.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments.
First, Hollars describes the magnetic field generating elements in each
of magnetrons 100a and 100b as capable of being oriented at various angles
relative to the line connecting the axes of the cylindrical targets. Hollars
col. 24,11. 6—10; col. 25,11. 21—24. In discussing a different embodiment,
Hollars depicts a pair a magnetrons in which the magnetic field generating
elements 36 are oriented in the particular manner required by claim 6. Non-
5
Appeal 2016-000065
Application 12/668,914
Final Act. 4—5 (discussing Hollars Fig. 2c). Hollars teaches that rotation of
the magnetic field generating elements in this manner directs the sputtered
flux. Hollars col. 25,11. 21—24.
In view of the foregoing, we agree with the Examiner that the
combination of Hollars and Lehan describes or suggests the claimed pair of
magnetic field generating elements oriented in the claimed manner.
Second, Appellant argues that the Examiner erred by finding that the
combination of Hollars and Lehan describes or suggests the claimed
auxiliary electrode structure. As discussed above, the rejection is based
upon the Examiner’s proposed modification of Hollars to replace the
rotating cylindrical target in one of magnetron 100a or 100b with the
conductive element depicted in Lehan’s Figure 5. Non-Final Act. 6.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s proposed modification of
Hollars in this manner is inconsistent with Lehan. Appeal Br. 8—10.
Appellant emphasizes that Lehan speaks of replacing one of the magnetrons
with electrically conductive element 102. Id. (citing Lehan col. 5,11. 9—12).
As Appellant notes, if the entire magnetron is replaced by Lehan’s
electrically conductive element, the claimed magnetic field generating
element would not be present in the Examiner’s proposed combination. Id.
The Examiner, however, has identified a reason for a person of
ordinary skill in the art to have retained the Hollars’ magnetic field
generating element and to replace only the cylindrical target with Lehan’s
conductive element. As the Examiner found, in the particular embodiment
6
Appeal 2016-000065
Application 12/668,914
depicted in Hollars’ Figure 15,5 magnetic field lines 52a extend across the
space between magnetrons 100a and 100b. See Answer 4—5; see also
Hollars col. 25,11. 2—11, 25—34. As Hollars explains, a magnetic field
arranged in this manner serves a useful purpose:
Advantageously, in magnetrons with type-II magnetic
assemblies as compared with magnetrons with type-I magnetic
assemblies, the magnetic field lines 52'a between the two
magnetrons 100a and 1006 are directed across the path of
electrons emitted from the third magnetron 100c along line 54a
toward the substrate 4. This behavior effectively stops any
heating of the substrate 4 from the highly energetic electrons
emitted from the sputtering plasma. This advantage is an
important consideration for maintaining higher deposition rates
on heat sensitive substrates.
Hollars col. 25,11. 25—34.
In view of Hollars’ description, we determine that the Examiner
correctly concluded that it would have been obvious to a person having
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace Hollars’
cylindrical target with Lehan’s conductive element while leaving the
magnetic field generating element rather than replacing the entire
magnetron.
5 We note that Figure 15 incorrectly depicts the relative polarity of the
magnets in magnetic assemblies 36'a and 36'b. The relative polarity shown
is not consistent with Hollars’ Specification, see col. 24,1. 60-col., 25,1. 10;
the magnetic field lines 52'a shown in Figure 15, and the relative polarity of
the magnetic assemblies shown in the embodiment depicted in Figure 16
(which is described as a more general form of the magnetic assembly
configuration used in the embodiment shown in Figure 15, see col. 25,
11. 11-12.
7
Appeal 2016-000065
Application 12/668,914
Third, Appellant further argues that the Examiner misapplied the
doctrine of teaching away:
[T]he Examiner’s Answer maintains that one skilled in
the art would draw from this description of Lehan a teaching of
replacing “the other cylindrical magnetron” in Hollars with the
electrically conductive element 102 of Lehan, and would also
retain the magnet of the magnetron of Hollars. The rationale
for this is evidently that Lehan does not explicitly teach away
from retaining the magnet (Examiner’s Answer, p. 4, last two
lines).
However, it is respectfully submitted that one skilled in
the art would not require an explicit admonition in Lehan not to
retain the magnet of the magnetron, in order to understand the
teaching of Lehan is to replace the magnetron with only an
electrically conductive element....
Reply Br. 1—2.
We are not persuaded by this argument. Appellant’s emphasis on the
Examiner’s use of the phrase “teaching away” is misplaced. In context, the
record clearly indicates that the Examiner provided an adequate reason for
retention of the magnet from Hollars’ magnetron:
[T]he test [for obviousness] is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art. . . . Here, Lehan does not teach away from an
embodiment having a magnet inside the auxiliary electrode 102.
Hollars teaches retention of the magnet structure because it
would prevent heating of the substrate by retaining electrons
close to the target’s (col. 25, In. 25—32). As discussed above,
Lehan requires only an electrode and target (Lig. 5) for its
invention to be realized.
Answer 4—5. As the above quoted passage indicates, the Examiner had
reasons for retaining the magnetic field generating element from Hollars’
magnetron beyond Lehan’s failure to discourage such a course of action.
8
Appeal 2016-000065
Application 12/668,914
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejection of independent
claim 6 and of claim 12, which depends from claim 6.
Claim 8. The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 9 as unpatentable over
the combination of Hollars and Wityak. Non-Final Act. 11. Claim 8 is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief:
8. A sputtering apparatus for depositing deposition particles
on a surface of a substrate to form a film, the deposition
particles having been sputter-evaporated from a surface of a
target within sputtering gas introduced into a vacuum chamber,
the sputtering apparatus comprising:
a first pair of sputter evaporation sources, each having a
cylindrical target, and a magnetic field generating member, said
cylindrical target having a center axis and being disposed so as
to be rotatable about the center axis, said magnetic field
generating member being disposed inside said cylindrical target
and being disposed in a direction parallel to the center axis of
said cylindrical target; and
a sputter power source for the supply of discharge
electric power to said cylindrical targets in said sputter
evaporation sources, using said cylindrical targets as cathodes,
so that said cylindrical targets become negative in potential for
a time,
wherein said cylindrical targets in said sputter
evaporation sources are disposed so as to confront each other in
parallel or approximately in parallel with each other,
wherein each said magnetic field generating member of
said first pair of sputter evaporation sources has a magnetic pole
facing the inner surface of the cylindrical target in which the
respective magnetic field generating member is disposed, and
wherein the facing magnetic poles of said magnetic field
generating members in said first pair of sputter evaporation
sources of the sputtering apparatus have mutually opposite
polarities, and
wherein each of said magnetic field generating members
is arranged to generate a magnetic field having magnetic lines
9
Appeal 2016-000065
Application 12/668,914
of force which penetrates the surface of the target of the
respective sputter evaporation source and reaches the surface of
the target of the other sputter evaporation source, so as to
generate Penning discharge.
Appeal Br. 13—14 (emphasis added).
Appellant argues that the rejection of independent claim 8 should be
reversed because neither Hollars nor Wityak describe or suggest a power
source that is capable of making the cylindrical targets negative in potential
for a time. Appeal Br. 10—11.
In rejecting claim 8, the Examiner found
Hollars does not explicitly teach using said cylindrical
targets as cathodes, so that said cylindrical targets become
negative in potential for a time. However the Examiner notes
Hollars teaches the sources may be operates [sic, operated] with
any combination of DC or Ac [sic, AC] electrical power (col. 9,
lines 7-35, col. 18,11. 20—32)[.]
Non-Final Act. 13.
The Examiner also found that Wityak teaches supplying a negative
voltage to a cylindrical target in a sputtering apparatus. Id. The Examiner
further found that Wityak explains the advantage of rendering its sputtering
target negative in potential for a period of time so that positive ions are
attracted from the plasma to sputter the target. Id. at 13 (citing Wityak 114
(“The sputter coating source embodies electrical means for biasing the target
material structure with a negative voltage,... so the target will attract
positive ions from the plasma of an inert gas.”)).
Based upon these findings of fact, the Examiner concluded that the
differences between the subject matter of claim 8 and the prior art would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention. Id.
10
Appeal 2016-000065
Application 12/668,914
Appellant argues:
Hollars does not. . . describe Penning discharge or the polarity
or voltage of the electric power supplied to the targets, but only
teaches the use of three individual DC power sources and of an
AC power source. In the case of an AC power source, the
relation of the phases between the voltages supplied to the
targets is unknown. ... It is not inherent in Hollars that the
power sources, whether AC or DC, are inherently capable of
supplying power such that the cylindrical targets lOOa-lOOb
become negative in potential for a time, to provide the
claimed Penning discharge.
Further, Wityak only discloses a single target and could
not teach a negative potential for both of the targets in Hollars,
or a Penning discharge. Claim 8 therefore also defined over the
cited prior art.
Appeal Br. 10-11.
Appellant’s argument amounts to an attack on each of the references
individually. The rejection, however, is based upon the combined teachings
of Hollars and Wityak. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)
(explaining that the test for obviousness “is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art”).
In this case, Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner reversibly
erred in determining that the combination of Hollars and Wityak would
suggested the use of an AC power source to supply electrical power to the
cylindrical targets such that the targets become negative in potential for a
time.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 8. Accordingly, we also affirm the rejection of claim 9, which
depends from claim 8.
Claim 10. The Examiner rejected claim 10 as unpatentable over the
combination of Hollars and Lehan. Non-Final Act. 3. The Examiner further
11
Appeal 2016-000065
Application 12/668,914
rejected claim 11—which depends from claim 10—as unpatentable of the
accommodation of Hollars, Lehan, and Wityak. Non-Final Act. 14.
Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 10 should be reversed:
Claim 10 recites “an auxiliary electrode structure lacking
a cylindrical target, said auxiliary electrode structure having an
auxiliary electrode member . . . and an auxiliary magnetic field
generating member including a magnet,” as well as that the
cylindrical targets become negative in potential for a time so
that Penning discharge is generated. Therefore, both the
arguments presented in support of Claim 6 and directed toward
auxiliary electrode structure lacking a cylindrical target, and the
arguments presented in support of Claim 8 also apply to Claim
10. Claim 10 therefore also defines over the cited prior art.
Appeal Br. 11.
As discussed above, we have affirmed the rejection of claim 6 and
claim 8. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10.
Thus, we also affirm the rejection of claim 11, which depends from claim 10
and is not argued separately by Appellant.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the rejection of claims 6
and 8—13 of the ’914 Application.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
12