Applied Materials, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 19, 2021

2020001114 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2021)

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.
15/399,419 01/05/2017 Stefan BANGERT ZIMR/0372USPD01 7322
44257 7590 01/19/2021
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPLIED MATERIALS
24 GREENWAY PLAZA
SUITE 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
EXAMINER
CHEN, KEATH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/19/2021 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):
Pair_Eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEFAN BANGERT, UWE SCHÜßLER,
JOSE MANUEL DIEGUEZ-CAMPO, and DIETER HAAS
Appeal 2020-001114
Application 15/399,419
Technology Center 1700
Before ERIC B. GRIMES, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
REN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21, 24, 26–31, and 34–41. See Final
Act. 3, 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Applied Materials,
Inc.” Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-001114
Application 15/399,419
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
21. An evaporation source for organic material,
an evaporation crucible, wherein the evaporation crucible
is configured to evaporate the organic material;
a distribution pipe with one or more outlets, wherein the
distribution pipe is in fluid communication with the evaporation
crucible and wherein the distribution pipe is rotatable around an
axis during evaporation, the distribution pipe and the evaporation
crucible being mounted to be rotatable together;
a support for the distribution pipe, wherein the support is
connectable to a first drive or includes the first drive, wherein the
first drive is configured for a translational movement of the
support and the distribution pipe; and
at least one side shield for shielding the organic material,
wherein the at least one side shield is mounted fixedly to not
rotate together with the distribution pipe, and wherein the at least
one side shield is configured to follow the translational
movement of the support and the distribution pipe.
Claims Appendix (Appeal Br. 26).

REFERENCES
The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner are:
Name Reference Date
Sakata US 2004/0261709 A1 Dec. 30, 2004
Yoon US 2009/0232976 A1 Sept. 17, 2009
Park US 2009/0308316 A1 Dec. 17, 2009
Yi US 2012/0064728 A1 Mar. 15, 2012
Sonoda US 2013/0280840 A1 Oct. 24, 2013

Appeal 2020-001114
Application 15/399,419
3
REJECTIONS
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
21, 24, 26–31, 34–37,
39–41
103 Sonoda, Sakata, Yi,
Yoon
29, 38 103 Sonoda, Sakata, Yi,
Yoon, Park

OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 2010 WL 889747, *4 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After having considered
the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s contentions,
we are not persuaded that reversible error has been identified, and we affirm
the Examiner’s § 103 rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office
Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Claim 212
Appellant first argues that the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting
claim 21 because “one skilled in the art would not be motivated to modify
Sonada [sic] with the translational movement mechanism taught by Sakata.”
Appeal Br. 18. The argument is unpersuasive because it does not address the
Examiner’s findings in support of the rejection. More specifically, the

2 Appellant argues for the patentability of claims 21, 24, 26–31, 34–37, and
39–41 as a group with claim 21 being the representative claim. See Appeal
Br. 11–25. These claims stand or fall together. See id.; see also 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2020-001114
Application 15/399,419
4
Examiner finds that although Sonoda does not teach or suggest the recited
evaporation source having a “distribution pipe and [an] evaporation crucible
being mounted to be rotatable together,” Sakata teaches or suggests this
limitation. Final Act. 6, 8–9; see also Ans. 10. The Examiner cites Yi – not
Sakata – contrary to Appellant’s argument, for the limitation of a “first drive
[which] is configured for a translational movement of the support and the
distribution pipe.” Final Act. 6, 10. Because the Examiner’s findings based
on Sakata are reasonable and the Appellant has not challenged them, we
accept them as facts. See In re Kunzmann, 326 F.2d 424, 425 n.3 (CCPA
1964).
Appellant acknowledges that “Yi teaches that the linear depositing
source 56 moves translationally on the guide member 58 to eventually cover
the entirety of the substrate.” Appeal Br. 20 (emphases removed). Appellant,
however, argues that because vapor source 80 of Sonoda “already spans the
width of the substrate 70,” “there is no reason to move the vapor deposition
source 80 as taught by Sonoda as the purpose of movement is moot.” Id.3
We are not persuaded by this argument because it does not address the
Examiner’s rationale to combine the prior art teaching. Compare id., with
Final Act. 9–10. More specifically, the Examiner explains that a skilled
artisan would have rearranged various prior art devices to arrive at the

3 Appellant mentions that the combination of Sonoda, Sakata, and Yi does
not teach or suggest “wherein the evaporation source evaporates the organic
material in the vacuum chamber; and a substrate support system disposed in
the vacuum chamber and having at least two tracks, wherein the at least two
tracks of the substrate support system are configured for essentially vertical
support of a substrate or a carrier carrying the substrate in the vacuum
chamber” as recited in claim 40 without elaboration. Appeal Br. 21. The
argument is unpersuasive for the same reason, namely, failure to address the
Examiner’s rationale. Compare id., with Final Act. 9–10.
Appeal 2020-001114
Application 15/399,419
5
recited limitation “for the purpose of reducing the size of the chambers.”
Final Act 9–10 (citing various prior art teachings including Yi ¶ 63).
Because Appellant does not address the Examiner’s rationale or the fact
findings supporting the rationale, no reversible error has been identified. See
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (holding that “there
must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness”); see also In re Kunzmann, 326
F.2d at 425 n.3. To the extent that Appellant asserts that certain prior art
features may be redundant, all of the features of a reference need not be
bodily incorporated into other references and the skilled artisan is not
compelled to blindly follow the teaching of one prior art reference over the
other without the exercise of independent judgment. See Lear Siegler, Inc. v.
Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellant lastly argues that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding
that Yoon teaches or suggests the recited evaporation source having “at least
one side shield [that] is mounted fixedly to not rotate together with the
distribution pipe, and wherein the at least one side shield is configured to
follow the translational movement of the support and the distribution pipe.”
Appeal Br. 22. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings with
regard to Yoon but argues only that because the “vapor deposition source 80
already spans the width of the substrate 70” in Sonoda, “there is no reason to
move the vapor deposition source 80 as taught by Sonada [sic] as the
purpose of movement is moot.” Appeal Br. 22. We are not persuaded by this
argument because it does not address the Examiner’s rationale to combine
the prior art teaching. Compare id., with Final Act. 10–11. More specifically,
the Examiner explains that a skilled artisan would have combined Yoon with
the other references “for the purpose of controlling the thickness of the
Appeal 2020-001114
Application 15/399,419
6
film.” Final Act. 11 (citing various prior art teachings including Yoon ¶ 52).
Because Appellant does not address the Examiner’s rationale or the fact
findings supporting the rationale, no reversible error has been identified. See
KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see also In re Kunzmann, 326 F.2d at 425 n.3.
Claim 38
Claim 38 depends from claim 21 and further recites: “at least one
second evaporation crucible supported by the support; and at least one
second distribution pipe supported by the support, wherein the at least one
second distribution pipe is in fluid communication with the at least one
second evaporation crucible.” Claims Appendix (Appeal Br. 28).
Appellant does not dispute Park’s teachings but repeats the argument
that because the “vapor deposition source 80 already spans the width of the
substrate 70” in Sonoda, “there is no reason to move the vapor deposition
source 80 as taught by Sonada [sic] as the purpose of movement is moot.”
Appeal Br. 24. We are not persuaded by this argument because it does not
address the Examiner’s rationale to combine Park with the prior art teaching.
Compare id., with Final Act. 14–15. More specifically, the Examiner
explains that a skilled artisan would have combined Park with the other
references “for the purpose of avoiding generation of dust.” Final Act. 15
(citing various prior art teachings including Park ¶ 9). Because Appellant
does not address the Examiner’s rationale or the fact findings supporting the
rationale, no reversible error has been identified. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418;
see also In re Kunzmann, 326 F.2d at 425 n.3.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
Appeal 2020-001114
Application 15/399,419
7
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
21, 24, 26–
31, 34–37,
39–41
103 Sonoda, Sakata,
Yi, Yoon
21, 24, 26–
31, 34–37,
39–41

29, 38 103 Sonoda, Sakata,
Yi, Yoon, Park
29, 38
Overall
Outcome
21, 24, 26–
31, 34–41

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED