Ex Parte Maruyama et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 1, 2018

14552617 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/552,617 11/25/2014
26902 7590 06/05/2018
Department of the Air Force
AFMCLO/JAZ
2240 B Street
Building 11
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7109
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Benji Maruyama
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.
AFD 1278 5050
EXAMINER
MCCLURE, CHRISTINA D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1718
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/05/2018 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):
Pamela.Kuns@us.af.mil
afmclo.jaz.1@us.af.mil
afmclo.jaz.pat@us.af.mil
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BENJI MARUYAMA, GORDON A. SARGENT, and
AHMAD E. ISLAM
Appeal2017-008754
Application 14/552,617 1
Technology Center 1700
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and JEFFREY R.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 6-8, 11, 12, 20, 21, 25, 27, 30, and
33-36.2
1 Appellant is the Applicant, the Government of the United States, as
Represented by the Secretary of the Air Force, which, according to the Brief,
is the real party in interest. Appeal Brief (Br. 1) filed December 19, 2016.
2 Claims 9 and 10 have been withdrawn from consideration pursuant to a
restriction requirement. Final Office Action (notice emailed on June 13,
2016), hereinafter "Final Act.," 2.
Appeal2017-008754
Application 14/552,617
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). 3
We AFFIRM.
The subject matter on appeal relates to methods for growing carbon
nanotubes on an inactive substrate (see, e.g., claim 1 ). The Inventors
disclose that the best growth of carbon nanotubes has been achieved with
limited types of catalyst support materials that are comparatively more
active than other support materials and the removal of material to create a
pattern in a substrate surface provides shape-specific nucleation sites for
carbon nanotubes. Spec. iii! 6-7. However, according to the Inventors,
metal catalysts on substrate surfaces are prone to Ostwald ripening in which
metal catalyst particles dissolve and redeposit as larger crystals or sol
particles that diffuse into the substrate and terminate carbon nanotube
growth. Id. ii 8. In view of this, the Inventors disclose there is a need for
carbon nanotube fabrication processes that use a controllable level of
substrate porosity, but reduce Ostwald ripening. Id. ii 9.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. 4 Limitations at issue are italicized.
1. A method for growing carbon nanotubes (CNTs) on an
inactive substrate, the method comprising:
selecting the inactive substrate, wherein the inactive
substrate has surface properties not favorable to carbon
nanotube growth and is selected from the group consisting of
silica, silicon wafer, quartz, thermal silica, silicon carbide,
titanium nitride, zirconia, and aluminum oxide;
bombarding a surface of the inactive substrate with ions
3 Our Decision refers to the Specification (Spec.) filed November 25, 2014,
Appellant's Appeal Brief (Br.) filed December 19, 2016, and the Examiner's
Answer (Ans.) dated February 1, 2017.
4 Br. 33.
2
Appeal2017-008754
Application 14/552,617
generated from a noble gas selected from the group consisting
of helium, argon, krypton, and xenon to provide a bombarded
surface having damaged chemical bonding therein, wherein the
ions bombarding the surface of the inactive substrate have
energies in a range from 1.5 keVto 6 keV, and wherein the
damaged chemical bonding includes dangling bonds, active
sites, vacancies, interstitial sites, or combinations thereof;
depositing a catalyst film on the bombarded surface
before growing the CNTs to provide a catalyst-deposited,
bombarded surface, wherein the catalyst film has a thickness in
a range from 0.5 nm to about 3 nm; and
growing the CNTs on the catalyst-deposited, bombarded
surface of the inactive substrate by exposing the catalyst-
deposited, bombarded surface at an elevated temperature in a
range from about 500°C to about 1000°C to a carbon source
selected from the group consisting of methane, ethylene,
acetylene, methanol, ethanol, isopropanol, toluene, and xylene.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
I. Claims 1, 6-8, 11, 12, 20, 21, 25, 27, 30, 33, and 34
under 35 U.S.C. § l 12(a) as failing to comply with the
written description requirement;
II. Claims 1, 6-8, 11, 12, 25, 27, and 33-35 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Dai5 in view of
Chen, 6 Grime, 7 and DiJ on; 8
III. Claims 20 and 21 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
5 Dai et al., US 2001/0019238 Al, published Sept. 6, 2001 ("Dai").
6 Chen et al., Focused ion beam milling as a universal template technique
for patterned growth of carbon nanotubes, 90 Applied Physics Letters
093126-1-3 (2007) ("Chen").
7 G. W. Grime, Nanolithography and Patterning Techniques in
Microelectronics, 184--217 (2005) ("Grime").
8 DiJon et al., US 2009/0325377 Al, published Dec. 31, 2009 ("DiJon").
3
Appeal2017-008754
Application 14/552,617
§ 103 over Dai, Chen, Grime, and DiJon and further in
view of Pushparaj 9 as evidenced by Bailey; 10 and
IV. Claims 30 and 36 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Dai, Chen, Grime, and DiJon and further in
view of Lugstein. 11
B. DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Claims 1, 6-8, 11, 12, 20, 21, 25, 27, 30, 33, and 34 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description
requirement. The Examiner sets forth separate rejections for claim 1, claims
7 and 8, and claim 30. Ans. 2--4. Claims 6, 11, 12, 20, 21, 25, 27, 33, and
34 depend from claim 1.
Claims 1, 6, 11, 12, 20, 21, 25, 27, 33, and 34
Claim 1 recites, among other things, selecting a substrate from the
group consisting of silica, silicon wafer, quartz, thermal silica, silicon
carbide, titanium nitride, zirconia, and aluminum oxide; and bombarding a
surface of the substrate with ions generated from a noble gas selected from
the group consisting of helium, argon, krypton, and xenon; wherein the ions
have energies in a range from 1.5 keV to 6 keV. Br. 33. The Examiner
finds paragraph 43 of the Specification (i.e., Example 1) discloses
9 Pushparaj et al., US 2011/0051322 Al, published Mar. 3, 2011
("Pushparaj").
10 Mark Bailey et al., Ionising Radiation Metrology Forum, Quantities, Units
and Ionising Radiation Fundamentals, I-24 (National Physical Laboratory
2010) ("Bailey").
11 A. Lugstein et al., FIB processing of silicon in the nanoscale regime, 76
Appl. Phys. A 545-548 (2003) ("Lugstein").
4
Appeal2017-008754
Application 14/552,617
bombarding an alumina substrate with argon ions having an energy of 5 ke V
and paragraphs 47--49 of the Specification (i.e., Example 2) disclose
bombarding sapphire and quartz substrates with 1.5---6 ke V argon or helium
ions but the Specification does not provide support for bombarding silica,
silicon wafer, thermal silica, titanium nitride, or zirconia substrates with
krypton or xenon ions having energies of 1.5---6 ke V, as recited in claim 1.
Ans. 2-3. In particular, the Examiner finds no indication that the ion energy
range of 1.5---6 ke V disclosed in Example 2 of the Specification would be
applicable to other substrates and noble gases.
Appellant asserts the disclosure, as originally filed, does not have to
provide explicit support for the claimed subject matter and the Examiner has
not explained why a person skilled in the art would not have recognized that
the energies disclosed in paragraphs 43 and 47--49 would be applicable to
the substrate and ion species recited in claim 1. Br. 10-13.
Appellant's arguments are persuasive. The Examiner's rejection rests
upon a lack of explicit support in the disclosure for the claimed subject
matter. However, satisfying the written description requirement does not
necessitate describing the exact subject matter claimed. See, e.g., Vas-Cath,
Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Martin v.
Johnson, 454 F.2d 746, 751 (CCPA 1972) (stating "the description need not
be in ipsis verbis [i.e., 'in the same words'] to be sufficient"). The Examiner
has not explained why Appellant's disclosure, as originally filed, would not
"reasonably convey[ ] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had
possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date." Ariad
Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed.Cir.2010) (en
bane). For example, the Examiner does not provide reasons why one of
5
Appeal2017-008754
Application 14/552,617
ordinary skill in the art would not recognize the ion energies used in
Example 2 as being be applicable to the other substrate materials and ion
species disclosed in the Specification. 12
Therefore, the Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case that
claims 1, 6, 11, 12, 20, 21, 25, 27, 33, and 34 fail to comply with the written
description requirement.
Claims 7, 8, and 30
Claims 7 and 8 and claim 30 are separately rejected but we treat these
rejections together here for purposes of efficiency.
The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 8 for similar reasons as claim 1.
Specifically, the Examiner finds paragraph 47 of the Specification (i.e.,
Example 2) supports a catalyst layer thickness of 0.5 nm to about 3 nm for
an iron catalyst on sapphire and quartz substrates and paragraph 56 (i.e.,
Example 5) supports a 1 nm iron catalyst layer on a sapphire substrate but
the Specification does not support the catalyst layer thickness recited in
claim 1 for all of the catalyst materials recited in dependent claims 7 and 8.
Ans. 3, 21-22. For claim 30, the Examiner finds paragraphs 47--48 of the
Specification (i.e., Example 2) provide support for the ion density range
recited in claim 30 but only for argon or helium ions with sapphire and
quartz substrates. Id. at 3--4, 22. The Examiner, however, does not explain
12 The Examiner states "when using a silicon carbide substrate it may be
desirable to use a different set of parameters compared to using an aluminum
oxide substrate." Ans. 21. Such reasoning relies solely on the speculation
that one of ordinary skill in the art might use different ion energies for
different substrate materials without setting forth a reason (e.g., one based
upon technical reasoning) why a different ion energy would be selected and
therefore why one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize that the
Appellant possessed what is claimed.
6
Appeal2017-008754
Application 14/552,617
why the disclosure does not reasonably convey that Appellant possessed the
claimed subject matter, other than to find a lack of explicit support. As in
the rejection of claim 1, this is insufficient to set forth a prima facie case. As
a result, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 7, 8, and 30.
For these reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 6-
8, 11, 12, 20, 21, 25, 27, 30, 33, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing
to comply with the written description requirement.
Rejection II
Claims 1, 6-8, 11, 12, 25, 27, and 33-35 are rejected as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Dai in view of Chen, Grime, and
DiJon.
The Examiner finds Dai discloses a method for growing carbon
nanotubes in which an inactive substrate (e.g., silicon, alumina) is selected, a
surface of the substrate is treated via electrochemical etching, a catalyst film
is deposited on the treated surface, and carbon nanotubes are grown on the
substrate by heating the substrate to 700°C and flowing ethylene through a
reactor containing the substrate. Id. at 4--5.
The Examiner finds Dai does not disclose bombarding the substrate
surface with ions or using a catalyst film having a thickness within the
thickness range recited in claim 1. Id. at 5.
The Examiner finds Chen discloses a method of growing carbon
nanotubes on silicon substrates without pre-deposition of metal catalysts by
using a focused ion beam to form nanosized patterns that cause the
nanotubes to preferentially grow in trenches of the patterns. Id. at 5---6. The
Examiner further finds Chen uses gallium ion for the focused ion beam. Id.
7
Appeal2017-008754
Application 14/552,617
at 7. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify the
process of Dai in view of Chen to use a focused ion beam to treat a substrate
because the focused ion beam would permit selective patterning of the
substrate, which would decrease the likelihood of carbon nanotubes growing
where there is no catalyst. Id. at 6-7.
The Examiner finds Dai, as modified in view of Chen, does not
disclose the use of noble gas ions with the energies recited in claim 1. Id. at
7. The Examiner finds Grime discloses the use of ions of argon, gallium,
and xenon having energies between 1-100 keV and that such ions eject
atoms from a target surface (i.e., cause removal of material), so as to remove
material for patterning. Id. at 7-8. The Examiner finds Grime also discloses
the use of lighter ions (i.e., hydrogen and helium) for higher energies of 1-3
MeV. Id. at 8. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to use argon or xenon ions in view of Grime's
disclosure and it would have been obvious to optimize the energies of such
ions, and thus provide ions having energies within the claimed range,
because Grime discloses the modification of material via ion bombardment
depends upon ion energy and atomic species. Id. at 8-9.
The Examiner finds Dai, as modified in view of Chen and Grime,
does not disclose a catalyst film having the thickness range recited in claim
1. Id. at 10. The Examiner finds DiJon discloses a process for producing
carbon nanotubes on a silicon substrate by using a 1 nm layer of iron. Id.
The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify Dai, as
modified in view of Chen and Grime, to use the catalyst layer thickness of
DiJon because DiJon demonstrates it was known to grow carbon nanotubes
with such a catalyst layer. Id. at 10-11.
8
Appeal2017-008754
Application 14/552,617
Appellant contends Grime is non-analogous art. Br. 14. Specifically,
Appellant asserts their field of endeavor is the growth of carbon nanotubes
on an inactive substrate while Grime is a general description of ion beam
patterning in a book and is directed to the surface patterning of polymers.
Id. at 14--17. Appellant further contends Grime would not have been
reasonably pertinent to the Inventor's particular problem, which Appellant
characterizes as "the fabrication of a catalyst support with a controllable
level of porosity and a reduction of Ostwald ripening." Id. at 17-19.
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive. The Examiner finds Grime
is within Appellant's field of endeavor because Grime is directed to the ion
bombardment of a substrate, such as a silicon substrate, and discusses the
types of ion and ion energies used for such a process. Ans. 22-23. Grime
discloses the use of ion beams to pattern a surface, such as a silicon
substrate, and discloses the use of oxygen, argon, gallium, and xenon ions
having energies between 1 keV and 100 keV. Grim 184--186. Therefore,
the disclosure of Grime supports the Examiner's findings. Moreover, the
Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Grime's
disclosure because it provides information about ion species and energies
typically used for treating substrates with ions. Ans. 23. Thus, Grime's
disclosure logically would have commended itself to an Inventors' attention
in considering his problem and would have been reasonably pertinent to the
Inventor's problem, which achieves controlled porosity in a substrate via an
ion beam. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Appellant further contends the Examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness. Br. 19-21. Specifically, Appellant argues Dai
does not teach or suggest a method in which a substrate surface is
9
Appeal2017-008754
Application 14/552,617
bombarded with ions, does not suggest suitable surface treatment other than
an electrochemical etch, or disclose that a focused ion beam treatment is a
recognized functional equivalent to its electrochemical etch technique. Id. at
21. 13 Appellant also asserts Chen does not disclose that its focused ion beam
technique is a recognized functional equivalent to the electrochemical etch
of Dai. Id. at 22-23.
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive. Appellant cites no authority
requiring the prior art to state that other processes may be used to permit a
modification or that the prior art recognize other processes as equivalents in
order for its method to be modified. Conversely, the Examiner finds Dai
discloses the use of an electrochemical etching technique to prepare a
substrate surface, which can be rough and complex to provide the best
results for carbon nanotube growth. Ans. 23-24. Paragraphs 36 and 52 of
Dai support these findings. The Examiner further finds Chen discloses a
focused ion beam process for roughening a substrate, such as a silicon
substrate. Id. at 24. Pages 093126-1-3 of Chen support these findings. The
Examiner explains that modifying Dai to use the focused ion beam technique
of Chen would have been obvious because the focused ion beam technique
would pattern or roughen a substrate in a controlled manner that avoids the
13 Appellant asserts "Dai appears to distinguish its method over methods like
Chen's" and cites statements in paragraph 44 of Dai regarding differences
between Dai's invention and prior processes, which Appellant argues are
like Chen's. Br. 21-22. To the extent Appellant argues Dai or Chen would
have taught away from the claimed invention, Dai' s discussion of
differences does not amount to teaching away. A disclosure that "does not
criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage" a claimed invention does not
amount to a teaching away. Jn re Fulton, 391F.3d1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir.
2004).
10
Appeal2017-008754
Application 14/552,617
growth of nanotubes in undesired locations. Id. at 24--25. Therefore, the
Examiner has set forth a prima facie case including a rationale explaining
why the proposed modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art. Moreover, the Examiner's rationale that using the focused
ion beam technique of Chen would have improved Dai' s process is based
upon the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, which is permissible
in a § 103 rejection. A teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the
relevant prior art teachings does not have to be found explicitly in the prior
art, as the teaching, suggestion, or motivation may be implicit from the prior
art as a whole. In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 987-88 (Fed. Cir. 2006) cited with
approval in KSR Int'!. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Appellant further argues Chen discloses its technique obviates the
need to deposit a metal catalyst while Dai teaches that its carbon nanotubes
grow only from regions with a catalyst. Br. 22. The Examiner finds that
although Chen teaches that pre-deposition of is not required, Chen also
teaches growing CNTs on silicon without catalyst pre-deposition is difficult.
Ans. 25-26. The Examiner also finds catalysts generally improve the
efficiency or speed of a process and therefore it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to include the catalyst disclosed by Dai. Id. at
26. Appellant does not respond to the Examiner's findings or otherwise
identify a reversible error in the Examiner's reasoning. Moreover, although
Chen discloses its process can be performed without a catalyst, Chen also
discloses that focused ion beams have been used to facilitate catalyst
deposition for carbon nanotube growth. Chen 093126-1. Therefore, Chen
recognizes the benefit of using catalysts with a focused ion beam in a
process to grow carbon nanotubes.
11
Appeal2017-008754
Application 14/552,617
With regard to Grime, Appellant contends its disclosure is broad and
does not establish what characteristics achieved with ion beam patterning
would be sufficiently similar so as to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art
to replace electrochemical etching with the focused ion beam technique of
Chen. Br. 23. This argument is unpersuasive because, as explained above,
Chen demonstrates it would have been obvious to replace the
electrochemical etching step of Dai with Chen's focused ion beam
technique.
Appellant further asserts Grime's general disclosure of ion species
and ion energies is not specific enough to suggest optimizing the ion
energies for the process of Dai, as modified in view of Chen. Id. at 23-24.
These arguments are also unpersuasive. The Examiner correctly finds
Grime discloses the use of ion beams to pattern a surface, such as a silicon
substrate, discloses the use of oxygen, argon, gallium, and xenon ions having
energies between 1 ke V and 100 ke V, and the modification of material via
ion bombardment depends upon ion energy and atomic species. Id. at 7-9,
27-28; Grim 184--186. Thus, Grime's disclosure demonstrates gallium ions
and argon or xenon ions as interchangeable for a focused ion beam to treat a
substrate and recognizes a relationship between ion species and ion energy
and how a substrate is affected by an ion beam. As a result, it would have
been obvious to modify the energies of the ions in the focused ion beam of
Dai, as modified in view of Chen and Grime, to optimize material removal
and patterning of a substrate, thus arriving at a process within the scope of
claim 1. "[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a
known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art." In re Boesch, 617
F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980).
12
Appeal2017-008754
Application 14/552,617
In addition, Appellant argues DiJon is silent with respect to ion
energies and does not remedy the deficiencies of Dai and Chen. Br. 24--25.
As discussed above, there are no deficiencies in the combination of Dai in
view of Chen or Dai in view of Chen and Grime that require curing, the
latter of which demonstrates the obviousness of the claimed ion energies, as
explained by the Examiner. Moreover, the Examiner cites DiJon for a
process in which carbon nanotubes are grown on a silicon substrate by using
a 1 nm layer of iron. Ans. 10. Thus, Appellant's arguments do not address
the Examiner's findings regarding DiJon.
For the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the Examiner's
Answer, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claims 1, 6-8, 11, 12,
25, 27, and 33-35 over Dai, Chen, Grime, and DiJon.
Rejection III
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Dai, Chen, Grime, and DiJon and further in view of Pushparaj
as evidenced by Bailey.
For the rejection of claims 20 and 21, Appellant merely asserts "[t]he
Examiner has failed to particularly point out where Pushparaj or Bailey
provides a motivation to combine Dai with Chen, Grime, and Dijon." Br.
27. Appellant further argues "the Examiner has failed to particularly point
out where Pushparaj or Bailey provides a motivation to modify the
combination of Dai, Chen, Grime, and Dijon to utilize bombarding noble gas
ion energies in a range from 1.5 keV to 6 keV." Id. Thus, Appellant argues,
in essence, that Pushparaj and Bailey fail to cure the deficiencies of Dai,
Chen, Grim, and DiJon. Such arguments are unpersuasive because the
13
Appeal2017-008754
Application 14/552,617
Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of obviousness for claim 1,
including the claimed ion energies, over Dai, Chen, Grim, and DiJon, as
discussed above. Moreover, Appellant's arguments do not address the
Examiner's rejection of claims 20 and 21 over Dai, Chen, Grime, DiJon, and
Pushparaj, as evidenced by Bailey, which includes a rationale with a lengthy
explanation. Ans. 16-17.
For the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the Examiner's
Answer, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 20 and 21
over Dai, Chen, Grime, DiJon, and Pushparaj, as evidenced by Bailey.
Rejection IV
Claims 30 and 36 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Dai, Chen, Grime, and DiJon and further in view of Lugstein.
The Examiner finds Dai, Chen, Grime, and DiJ on do not disclose the
recited ion density. Id. at 17-18. The Examiner finds Lugstein discloses
irradiating a silicon substrate with a gallium ion beam having an ion density
of 1013 ions/cm2 to 1015 ions/cm2 and that Lugstein teaches ion dosage (e.g.,
due to a decrease in ion beam density) affects the amount of material
removed from the silicon substrate. Id. at 18-19. In view of this, the
Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify Dai, Chen,
Grime, and DiJon in view of Lugstein to optimize the density of the ion
beam used to bombard a substrate. Id. at 19-20.
Appellant contends Lugstein is non-analogous art because Lugstein is
directed to focused ion beam processing of silicon in the nanoscale regime
and investigating how shrinking feature sizes impact sputter efficiency for
crystalline silicon. Br. 27-32.
14
Appeal2017-008754
Application 14/552,617
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive. Lugstein discloses the use of
focused ion beams to pattern silicon substrates in a controlled manner.
Lugstein 545: 1 Introduction. Therefore, the Examiner correctly finds
Lugstein is in the same field of endeavor. Ans. 29. Moreover, Lugstein is
reasonably pertinent to the Inventors' particular problem because Lugstein
discloses patterning silicon substrates in a controlled manner via focused ion
beam. Thus, because of the subject matter with which it deals, Lugstein's
disclosure logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention
in considering his problem. In re Clay, 966 F .2d at 659.
For the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the Examiner's
Answer, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 30 and 36
over Dai, Chen, Grime, DiJon, and Lugstein.
C. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
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
15