Ex Parte Oda et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 5, 2012

10527320 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 5, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KUNIHIRO ODA and RYO SUZUKI
____________

Appeal 2011-001399
Application 10/527,320
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, PETER F. KRATZ, and KAREN M.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-3, 16-19, and 21-23 as
unpatentable over Miyake (JP 10-317086, published Dec. 2, 1998; as
translated) in view of Kanano (JP 10-110264, published Apr. 28, 1998; as
translated), of claims 16 and 20 as unpatentable over these references and
further in view of ESPI Metals-High Purity Iron (2002;
http://www.espimetals.com/metals/catiron.htm), and of claim 29 as
Appeal 2011-001399
Application 10/527,320

2
unpatentable over Miyake in view of Kanano and further in view of Vossen
(US 3,749,658, patented Jul. 31, 1973). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6.
We REVERSE.
Appellants claim a sputtering target comprising an iron silicide
magnetron sputtering target having a content of oxygen as a gas component
of 1000 ppm or less, a relative density of at least 90%, and a target texture
with an average crystal grain size of 300 µm or less, the target texture being
substantially a ζa phase or a primary phase that is a ζa phase (sole
independent claims 1 and 29).
Representative claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A sputtering target, comprising an iron silicide
magnetron sputtering target having a content of oxygen as a gas
component of 1000ppm or less, a relative density of at least 90%, and a
target texture with an average crystal grain size of 300µm or less, said target
texture being substantially a ζa phase, or having a primary phase that is a ζa
phase.

The Examiner's fundamental conclusion of obviousness, which
applies to both independent claims 1 and 29, is expressed as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of Applicant's
invention, would be motivated to utilize a higher purity silicide
material, of any metal, particularly iron in the case of the Miyake
reference because the Miyake reference teaches that it is desirable to
use high purity iron and silicon to produce a product that is free of
impurities and can be used as a semiconductor material [See Miyake,
Paragraphs 0003 and 0004]. It is especially desirable to produce a
supporting target that is low in oxygen content [See Kanano, Abstract]
because the sputtering target will be utilized in an inert environment.
[Ans. para. bridging 4-5; see also id. at 6-7].
Appeal 2011-001399
Application 10/527,320

3
"[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness." See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) quoted
with approval in KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417-18
(2007).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not provided some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support a legal
conclusion of obviousness (Br. 10-11).
As more thoroughly explained in the Appeal Brief, Miyake does not
disclose an iron silicide magnetron sputtering target of any kind. Rather,
Miyake discloses obtaining beta-FeSi2 semiconductor material either with a
conventional prior art method of heating alpha-FeSi2 or with Miyake's
invention method of heating high purity iron in contact with high purity
silicon. On the other hand, although Kanano discloses a sputtering target,
the target is made of titanium silicide, not iron silicide of any type much less
the type claimed by Appellants.
The Examiner has provided this record with no rational explanation
why one with ordinary skill in this art would have combined these references
in the manner required by the independent claims. For example, the
Examiner has failed to give any specific logical reasoning why the sputtering
target disclosure of Kanano would have suggested the requisite modification
of the conventional prior art or the invention described by Miyake neither of
which has anything to do with a sputtering target. On this record, the only
reason for so modifying Miyake derives from the impermissible hindsight of
Appellants' own disclosure.
Appeal 2011-001399
Application 10/527,320

4
The above discussed deficiencies apply to all of the § 103 rejections
before us. Accordingly, we will not sustain any of the rejections advanced
by the Examiner in this appeal.

The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

tc