Ex Parte Cremer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 21, 2017

12989882 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 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.
12/989,882 01/06/2011 Rainer Cremer KPPA142735 3553
26389 7590 04/25/2017
rTTRTSTRNSFN OTONNOR TOHNSON KTNDNFNN PT T C EXAMINER
1201 THIRD AVENUE WITTENBERG, STEFANIE S
SUITE 3600
SEATTLE, WA 98101-3029 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1756
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/25/2017 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):
efiling @ cojk. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAINER CREMER and WALTER MAY
Appeal 2016-002256
Application 12/989,882
Technology Center 1700
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 27 and 29-41, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 In this decision, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed August 28,
2014 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed May 29, 2015 (“App. Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer mailed October 6, 2015 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief
filed December 17, 2015 (“Reply Br.”).
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as CemeCon AG. App. Br. 1.
3 Claims 1—26 and 28 have been cancelled. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2016-002256
Application 12/989,882
Claim 27, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claims on appeal.
27. An apparatus for pretreating and coating of bodies by
magnetron sputtering, comprising:
a vacuum chamber with a metallic chamber wall and at
least one magnetron arranged therein having at least one sputter
target,
wherein said magnetron is provided as a high power pulsed
magnetron sputtering (HPPMS) magnetron for operation
according to the high power pulsed magnetron sputtering
process,
wherein at least one electrical conductor feeds electric pulses to
the HPPMS magnetron by connecting a capacitor bank of
parallel connected capacitors to the sputter target of the HPPMS
magnetron by means of a switching element, and
wherein the switching element and the capacitor bank are
arranged directly on the chamber wall, and
wherein a direct current power supply is connected to charge the
capacitors of the capacitor bank, said direct current power supply
being arranged remote from said chamber wall.
App. Br. 16 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The Examiner maintains the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 27 and 29-41 as unpatentable over Kouznetsov et al. (WO
2006/049566 Al, published May 11, 2006) (hereinafter “Kouznetsov”) in
view of Chistyakov et al. (US 2007/0188104 Al, published August 16, 2007)
(hereinafter “Christyakov”), and Nishida (JP2006-161088, published
2
Appeal 2016-002256
Application 12/989,882
June 22, 2006) (hereinafter Nishida) alone or further in view of additional
references.4 Final Act. 3—14; Ans. 2—15.5
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Kouznetsov and Christyakov disclose an
apparatus for pretreating and coating of bodies by magnetron sputtering that
includes every limitation recited in claim 27 except for the limitation that
“the switching element and the capacitor bank are arranged directly on the
chamber wall.” Final Act. 4.
The Examiner finds that “Nishida teaches the arrangement wherein
the switching element and capacitors are located on the chamber wall to
prevent arc discharge, noise, and to produce stable sputtering.” Ans. 5
(citing Nishida 9—11; Figs. 1—3). The Examiner finds that this teaching in
Nishida “provides sufficient motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the
4 Claim 29 is rejected further in view of Webster et al. (US 4,098,452, issued
July 4, 2002) (hereinafter “Webster”), claim is 30 rejected further in view of
Webster and Lane (US 3,635,811, issued January 18, 1972) (hereinafter
“Lane”), claim 32 is rejected further in view of Webster and Leyendecker et
al. (US 2001/0009225 Al, published July 26, 2001) (hereinafter
“Leyendecker”), claims 33—35 are rejected further in view of Leyendecker
and Sato et al. (US 2004/0173305 Al, published September 9, 2004)
(hereinafter “Sato”), claims 36—39 are rejected further in view of
Leyendecker, Sato, and Xu (US 6,136,095 Al, issued October 24, 2000)
(hereinafter “Xu”), and claim 40 is rejected further in view of Leyendecker,
Sato, and Frach et al. (WO 2004/094686 A2, published November 4, 2004)
(hereinafter “Frach”).
5 The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 27 and 29-41 as
unpatentable over Kouznetsov in view of Christyakov, and Petrach
(US 2006/0260938 Al, published Nov. 23, 2006) (hereinafter “Petrach”)
alone or further in view of additional references were withdrawn by the
Examiner in the Answer. Ans. 2.
3
Appeal 2016-002256
Application 12/989,882
art to modify the arrangement of capacitors and switching element of
Kouznetsov and/or Christyakov with the arrangement disclosed in Nishida.”
Ans. 17. Alternatively, the Examiner finds that the combination of
Kouznetsov, Christyakov, and Nishida disclose “a finite number of
identified, predictable variable solutions ... for the arrangement of
sputtering elements (e.g. [,] capacitors, switches, etc.)” including a switching
element and capacitors located directly on and not on a chamber wall of a
sputtering device. Id. The Examiner determines that “[i]t would have been
obvious to position and/or rearrange these elements either directly on the
wall or not directly on the wall with a reasonable expectation of success
within the field of sputtering.” Id.
Appellants point out that Nishida teaches that its sputtering apparatus
includes an arc extinction circuit on a chamber wall that uses decoupling
capacitors to short noise on the power lines, and uses switches to suppress
arc discharges by reversing polarity of the input power, but does not teach or
suggest that the capacitors and switches of its arc extinction circuit supply
electric pulses to a sputter target like the capacitors and switching elements
in Kouznetsov and Christyakov. See App. Br. 10-12 (citing Nishida ]Hf 9,
16); see also Reply Br. 1—2, 5, and 9—10. Thus, Appellants contend that one
of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated, based on the
teachings of Nishida, to rearrange the capacitor banks and switches that
supply electric pulses to the sputter target in Kouznetsov’s magnetron
sputtering apparatus, as modified by Christyakov, so “the switching element
and the capacitor bank are arranged directly on the chamber wall” of the
vacuum chamber, as recited in claim 27. See Reply Br. 9-10.
4
Appeal 2016-002256
Application 12/989,882
Appellants’ argument is persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. The apparatus of claim 27 feeds electric pulses to the
HPPMS sputtering magnetron “by connecting a capacitor bank of parallel-
connected capacitors to the sputter target of the HPPMS magnetron by
means of a switching element, . . . wherein the switching element and the
capacitor bank are arranged directly on the chamber wall” of the vacuum
chamber. Nishida teaches preventing arc discharge in sputtering devices that
use a sputtering power source, especially one that is pulsed, by using
decoupling capacitors and switching elements that reverse polarity of the
input power. Nishida H 1, 8, and 10-11. As Appellants argue, Nishida
does not teach or suggest that its decoupling capacitors and the switches for
polarity feed electric pulses to the sputter target. Reply Br. 9. Because the
Examiner has not identified support in the prior art for finding that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have included the capacitors and switching
elements that feed electric pulses to the sputter target directly on the
chamber wall of the vacuum chamber, the Examiner’s obviousness
determination is based on improper hindsight reconstruction.
Because the Examiner’s rejections all rely on the basic combination of
Kouznetsov, Christyakov, and Nishida, we cannot sustain any of the stated
rejections.
5
Appeal 2016-002256
Application 12/989,882
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 27 and 29—
41 are reversed.
REVERSED
6