Ex Parte TamagakiDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 22, 201712668914 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation