Ex Parte Kwak et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 22, 2018

14078261 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/078,261 11/12/2013
150369 7590 10/24/2018
Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt/AMAT
1211 SW Fifth Ave.
Suite 1900
Portland, OR 97204
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Byung Sung Kwak
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.
014415USAC01 7543
EXAMINER
DAGENAIS-ENGLEHAR, KRISTEN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1717
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/24/2018 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):
IPDocketing@SCHWABE.com
mscardina@schwabe.com
ghoover@schwabe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BYUNG SUNG KWAK and NETY M. KRISHNA 1
Appeal2017-001861
Application 14/078,261
Technology Center 1700
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 6-9 and 21-23. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a method of fabricating a thin-
film battery. E.g., Spec. ,r 2; Claim 6. Claim 6 is reproduced below from
page 11 (Appendix A: Claims) of the Appeal Brief:
1 The Appellant is the Applicant, Applied Materials, Inc., which is also
identified as the real party in interest. See App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-001861
Application 14/078,261
6. A method of fabricating a thin-film battery, the method
compnsmg:
depositing a first portion of a protective coating layer directly
on an exposed anode layer above a substrate of the thin-film
battery in an atmosphere inert to the anode layer;
subsequent to depositing the first portion of the protective
coating layer, exposing the first portion of the protective
coating layer to an atmosphere substantially comprising 0 2,
H20, N2, CO and CO2;
subsequent to exposing the first portion of the protective
coating layer to the atmosphere, masking the first protective
coating layer; and
subsequent to masking the first portion of the protective coating
layer, depositing a second portion of the protective coating
layer on the first portion of the protective coating layer.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as follows:
1. Claim 6 over Bates (US 6,994,933 Bl, issued Feb. 7, 2006) and
Sheats (US 6,146,225, issued Nov. 14, 2000);
2. Claims 7-9 over Bates, Sheats, and Neudecker (US 2004/0048157
Al, published Mar. 11, 2004);
3. Claim 21 over Bates, Sheats, and Johnson (US 6,402,796 Bl,
issued June 11, 2002); and
4. Claims 22 and 23 over Bates, Sheats, Johnson, and Neudecker.
ANALYSIS
After review of the cited evidence in the appeal record and the
opposing positions of the Appellant and the Examiner, we determine that the
Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner's rejections.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejections for reasons set forth below, in the
2
Appeal2017-001861
Application 14/078,261
Final Action, and in the Examiner's Answer. See generally Final Act. 2-11;
Ans. 2-13.
The Appellant argues the claims as a group, focusing on claim 6, and
does not present distinct arguments for the separate grounds of rejection.
See App. Br. 5-8. We select claim 6 as representative of the rejected claims,
and the remaining claims will stand or fall with claim 6.
The Examiner finds that Bates teaches thin-film batteries comprising
the layers described in claim 6. Ans. 2. The Examiner finds that the layers
"are deposited in order." Id. at 11; Bates Fig. 3. The Examiner finds that
Bates teaches the use of a "getter layer," which may be deposited on top of
planarization layer 3 6, and that combination of the getter layer and the
planarization layer constitute a "first portion of a protective coating layer,"
as claimed. Id. at 2-3.
With respect to the requirement of claim 6 that the first portion of a
protective coating layer be deposited "in an atmosphere inert to the anode
layer," the Examiner finds that Bates teaches that anodes may be highly
reactive with oxygen, water, and/or water vapor, and that upon exposure the
anode material "can undergo undesirable reactions." Id. at 3. In view of
those teachings, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to
a person of ordinary skill in the art to deposit the first protective coating
layer in an inert atmosphere to avoid undesirable reactions with the anode.
Id. at 3--4.
With respect to the requirements ( 1) that after the first portion of the
protective coating is deposited, the coating is exposed to an atmosphere
substantially comprising 02, H20, N2, CO and CO2, and (2) that the
protective layer is "mask[ ed]" after exposure to the atmosphere, the
3
Appeal2017-001861
Application 14/078,261
Examiner finds that the getter layer of Bates is taught to be reactive with 0 2
and H20, and that Sheats discloses the use of a similar getter layer that
results in masking upon reacting with oxygen and/or water. Id. at 4. The
Examiner finds that Sheats discloses that such a masked getter layer is
desirable because "the permeability of the layer will be lower than it was
initially, because the free volume is now occupied by the chemically
[bonded] oxygen atoms. This results in the device being further protected
for some period of time from oxygen or water that would have otherwise
penetrated the barrier layer." Id. (internal citations omitted). The Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to expose the getter layer of
Bates to air in view of Sheats to produce "a better barrier layer." Id. at 4--5.
With respect to deposition of a second portion of the protective
coating after masking, the Examiner finds that Bates "teaches further
deposition of layers in the barrier stack," referencing Figures 3 and 5. Id.
at 5.
In view of those findings, the Examiner concludes that the subject
matter of claim 6 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art.
The entirety of the Appellant's argument is that "the combination of
Bates and Sheats fails to disclose a method including, in order," the steps of
claim 6. App. Br. 7. According to the Appellant, "Bates merely discloses
the air sensitive nature of lithium anodes, lithium cathodes, and lithium
electrolyte layers," and "Sheats merely discloses barrier layers for
preventing water or oxygen from a source from reaching a device that is
sensitive to water or oxygen." Id.
4
Appeal2017-001861
Application 14/078,261
That argument is not persuasive because it merely summarizes the
individual references and fails to meaningfully address or identify error in
the Examiner's specific findings and conclusions concerning Bates and
Sheats. In particular, the Appellant does not dispute that the proposed
combination would result in a thin-film battery the same as that produced by
the method of claim 6. With regard to the order of steps, the Appellant does
not challenge the Examiner's finding that the layers in a barrier stack must
be "deposited in order," and, because the layers produced by the
combination of Bates and Sheats are the same as the claimed layers, they
must be deposited in the order recited by claim 6. See Ans. 11.
With respect to exposing the first portion of the protective layer to an
atmosphere substantially comprising 02, H20, N2, CO and CO2, in view of
the teachings of Sheats, the Examiner's de facto position is that this step
must be carried out prior to masking and deposition of the second portion of
protective layer in order to achieve the benefits described by Sheats, i.e.,
reduction of the permeability of the getter layer due to reduction of the free
volume of the getter layer. See Ans. 4.
On this record, the Appellant's limited arguments do not persuade us
of reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 6.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 6-9 and 21-23.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
5