Ex Parte Krasnov et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

12318919 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/318,919 01112/2009
23117 7590 09/02/2016
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Alexey Krasnov
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
JAR-3691-1631 2625
EXAMINER
WU,JENNYR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1733
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2016 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXEY KRASNOV, WILLEM DEN BOER, and
R. GLENN STINSON1
Appeal2015-002805
Application 12/318,919
Technology Center 1700
Before PETER F. KRATZ, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--13, and 15-21 in the above-identified
application. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Guardian Industries
Corp. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2015-002805
Application 12/318,919
BACKGROUND
Appellants' invention relates to techniques for reducing stress
asymmetry in sputtered polycrystalline films. Spec. i-f 1. In particular, the
invention is designed in part to address "stress asymmetry in the travel and
cross-coated directions of sputter-deposited polycrystalline films ... ,
especially in the large-area applications that often require film patterning"
such as photovoltaic applications, flat-panel devices, and displays. Id. i-f 5.
Independent claim 1 is representative:
1. A sputtering apparatus for sputter coating an article in a
reactive environment, comprising:
a vacuum chamber;
a sputtering target located in the vacuum chamber, the
sputtering target including a target material and to be located
over the article to be sputter coated; and
a plurality of substantially parallel shields located
proximate to the target such that major axes of the respective
shields are substantially parallel to each other and extend
parallel to a travel direction of the article to be sputter coated
in the sputtering apparatus, so that substantially parallel
shields are only oriented parallel to the travel direction in the
vacuum chamber and there are no shields in the vacuum
chamber that are oriented in any other direction;
each said shield being electrically isolated and substantially
non-magnetic, and wherein each said shield extends from the
target perpendicularly toward a horizontal surface of the article
to be sputter coated which is located below the target and below
the shields and which is travelling in the travel direction in the
sputtering apparatus, and wherein each said shield has a vertical
depth that is substantially less than a distance between the
target and the horizontal surface and each said shield does not
extend below the horizontal surface of the article to be sputter
coated; and
wherein each said shield is disposed in the vacuum chamber
at a location suitable for reducing the oblique component of
sputter material flux produced during the sputter coating of the
2
Appeal2015-002805
Application 12/318,919
article compared to an apparatus that lacked the shields such
that a difference between the travel direction tensile stress and
the cross-coater tensile stress of the coating on the article is less
than about 15%.
Appeal Br. 24--25 (emphasis added). Claims 12 and 20 are also
independent. See id. at 26-29. Claim 12 recites a "method making a coated
article" that includes use of a device with structural features substantially
similar to the device of claim 1, and claim 20 recites an apparatus with
substantially similar features to claim 1, including the language emphasized
above. See id.
An embodiment of the claimed invention is shown in Figure 7, which
is reproduced below:
Fig. 7
Figure 7 depicts "a substantially planar sputter target 40 including a plurality
of shields 70." Spec. i131.
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
I. Claims 1-2, 5, 8-13, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,804,046 (issued Sept.
8, 1998) [hereinafter Sawada] in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication
No. US 2002/0023831 Al (published Feb. 28, 2002) [hereinafter Iwase ], and
3
Appeal2015-002805
Application 12/318,919
further in view of U.S. Patent No. US 6,592,728 Bl (issued July 15, 2003)
[hereinafter Paranjpe]. Final Action 3-12.
II. Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sawada in view ofiwase and Paranjpe, and further in
view of U.S. Patent No. 3,985,635 (issued Oct. 12, 1976) [hereinafter
Adam]. Final Action 12.
III. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sawada in view ofiwase and Paranjpe, and further in
view of U.S. Patent No. US 6,287,436 Bl (issued Sept. 11, 2001) [Pelletier]
and U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2005/0199491 Al (published
Sept. 15, 2005) [Gung]. Final Action 12.
IV. Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sawada in view ofiwase and Paranjpe, and further in
view of U.S. Patent No. 5,605,576 (issued Feb. 25, 1997) [Sasaki]. Final
Action 12.
V. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sawada in view of Iwase and Adam. Final Action 12-16.
VI. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sawada in view ofiwase and Adam, and further in view
of Paranjpe. Final Action 16.
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Sawada teaches the limitations of
independent claims 1 and 12, except that it "does not expressly teach (1) a
traveling substrate; (2) ... orientations of shields are uniform and parallel to
the travel direction; and (3) the difference between the travel direction
tensile stress and cross-coater tensile stress." Final Action 5; see also id. at
4
Appeal2015-002805
Application 12/318,919
10. With respect to claim 20, the Examiner finds that "Sawada does not
expressly teach (1) a traveling substrate; and (2) uniformly oriented shield
and parallel to the travel direction and (3) shield length being the same as
target width." Id. at 14. For each of the three claims, the Examiner cites
Iwase as teaching limitations (1) and (2). See id. at 6, 10-11, 14.
Figure 7 of I wase is reproduced below:
FIG. 7
34
37 .. _ ~
41
35 _ ....~"
.At
'23 '··---------------------~·/''l V"1.;.
Figure 7 depicts "a mechanism for improving the uniformity of film
thickness," Iwase i-f 70, that includes a grid plate 36 between the target 23
and substrate 28, see id.; see also id. i-f 48. Also depicted is an optional
"mechanism for moving (turning) the substrate at the time of film
formation ... so that film thickness can be made more uniform." Id. i-f 70.
According to the Examiner, Iwase teaches limitation (1) because it
teaches that "a grid plate (36) comprising uniformly oriented shields parallel
5
Appeal2015-002805
Application 12/318,919
to downward particle travel direction ... is placed between target (23) and
substrate (28) to reduce an increase in particles falling at a large incident
angle and incident obliquely on the substrate which causes non-uniformity."
Final Action 6 (citing Iwase Figs. 2, 4, i-fi-f 10, 12); see also id. at 10-11, 14.
The Examiner also finds that I wase teaches limitation (2) because I wase
states that "substrate (28) is moving by a drive means (claim 19 and
paragraph [ 0071]) so that the film thickness can be made more uniform." Id.
at 6, 11, 14. Based on these findings, the Examiner determines that "it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the
invention to use a traveling substrate horizontally and uniformly oriented
shields as disclosed by Iwase, in the apparatus of Sawada for the benefit of
uniform coating." Id. at 8, 11, 15.
We determine that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding that Iwase
teaches limitations (1) and (2). First, we disagree with the Examiner's
conclusion that in apparatus claims 1 and 20, 2 the reference to a "travel
direction" of the substrate is "intended use and operating manner of [the]
claimed apparatus." Answer 7. Claims 1 and 20 require a configuration
such that an article to be coated has a travel direction within the apparatus,
and this travel direction is parallel to major axes of the shields. See Appeal
Br. 24, 28. Therefore, this limitation puts constraints upon the structure of
the apparatus, and is not merely intended use. Were we to give no
patentable weight to the term travel direction, this would render meaningless
the requirement of claims 1 and 20 that the major axes of the shields run
parallel to the travel direction.
2 In what we assume is a typographical error, the Examiner misidentified the
independent apparatus claims as 1 and 12, rather than 1 and 20. Answer 7.
6
Appeal2015-002805
Application 12/318,919
Second, we disagree with the Examiner's conclusion that Iwase
teaches a travel direction as that term is used in claims 1, 12, and 20. Iwase
teaches that a sputtering device may include a "mechanism for moving
(turning) the substrate at the time of film formation." I wase i-f 71; see also
claim 19, Fig. 7. However, interpreting the term travel in claims 1, 12, and
20 as a rotation is inconsistent with the requirement that the travel direction
be "parallel" to the "major axes of the respective shields." Because an axis
is a line, anything that is parallel to an axis must also be a line. Thus, we
interpret the term travel direction in claims 1, 12, and 20 to mean a direction
of linear motion. The Examiner has not shown that Iwase teaches that the
substrate moves in a linear direction that could be parallel to major axes of
the respective shields.
Finally, claims 1, 12, and 20 require that the "shields" must be
"substantially parallel to each other," the major axes of the shields must
extend "parallel to a travel direction of the article to be sputter coated," and
there can be "no shields in the vacuum chamber that are oriented in any
other direction." See Appeal Br. 24, 26, 28. The Examiner has not provided
an explicit rationale for why grid 36 of Iwase meets these claim limitations.
Iwase describes grid 36 as, for example, a honeycomb-like structure of
hexagonal prisms. See I wase i-f 51, Fig. 3. For any travel direction (other
than perhaps strictly vertical, which Iwase is not shown to teach), at least
some of the internal surfaces in such a configuration will have major axes
that are not oriented parallel to that travel direction.
Because the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 12, and 20
depends, in material part, on the Examiner's erroneous findings and
conclusions with respect to I wase, we determine that the Examiner
reversibly erred in deciding to reject independent claims 1, 12, and 20.
7
Appeal2015-002805
Application 12/318,919
Because the Examiner's additional findings regarding the dependent claims
do not cure these errors, we also determine that the Examiner reversibly
erred in rejecting dependent claims 2, 4--11, 13, 15-19, and 21.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
8