Ex Parte Rietzler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

12947912 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/947,912 11/17/2010 Wolfgang Rietzler
86378 7590 08/31/2016
Pearne & Gordon LLP
1801East9th Street
Suite 1200
Cleveland, OH 44114-3108
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.
SRP-46127US1 2858
EXAMINER
NEWTON, VALERIE N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2897
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 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):
patdocket@pearne.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WOLFGANG RIETZLER and BART SCHOL TE VAN MAST 1
Appeal2015-003094
Application 12/94 7 ,912
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, and
MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-17 and 24 as unpatentable
over Foust et al. (US 6,908,561 Bl, issued June 21, 2005) ("Foust") in view
of Farnworth (US 2005/0106855 Al, published May 19, 2005). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We REVERSE.
1 Oerlikon Advanced Technologies AG is identified as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-003094
Application 12/947,912
Appellants claim a method of processing a substrate comprising the
steps of: performing an out-gassing treatment by heating the substrate to a
temperature Tl and removing gaseous contamination emitted from the
substrate until the out-gassing rate is determined by the diffusion of the
substrate's contamination and thus essentially a steady state has been
established; determining whether or not essentially a steady state has been
established; and if established lowering the temperature to a temperature T2
and further processing the substrate at the temperature T2 which further
processing includes depositing a metal film onto the substrate (sole
independent claim 1 ).
A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
Claim 1: A method of processing a substrate, comprising the steps of:
providing a substrate that displays out-gassing when placed in a
vacuum,
placing the substrate in a vacuum,
performing an out-gassing treatment by heating the substrate to a
temperature T 1 and removing gaseous contamination emitted from the
substrate until the out-gassing rate is determined by the diffusion of the
substrate's contamination and thus essentially a steady state has been
established,
determining whether or not said essentially a steady state has been
established, and
upon determining that said essentially a steady state has been
established, lowering the temperature to a temperature T2 at which the
diffusion rate of the substrate's contamination is lower than at T 1,
further processing the substrate at said temperature T2, said further
processing including depositing a film comprising a metal onto the substrate,
until the substrate has been covered with the film.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Foust discloses out-
gassing a substrate
2
Appeal2015-003094
Application 12/947,912
by heating the substrate to a temperature Tl and removing
gaseous contamination emitted from the substrate until the out-
gassing rate is determined by the diffusion of the substrate's
contamination and thus essentially a steady state has been
established (column 8 line 22), and afterwards lowering the
temperature to a temperature T2 at which the diffusion rate of
the substrate's contamination is lower than at Tl (column 8
lines 23 and 24, note that the substrate is cooled to room
temperature), but does not disclose that the further processing
the substrate at said temperature T2 until the substrate has been
covered with a film comprising a metal (910) (column 8 line 34
and column 10 line 10 and Fig. 9), but does not disclose that the
further processing the substrate at said temperature T2 until the
substrate has been covered with a film comprising a metal film
includes depositing the film.
Final Action 2. The Examiner additionally finds that Farnworth "discloses a
method of processing a substrate in which an organic layer is deposited on a
substrate and subsequently a conductive layer (metal)" (id. at 3). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious "to incorporate the
method of Farnworth into the invention of Foust" (id.).
Appellants contest the rejection of claim 1 with the following
argument.
The cited references teach out-gassing for specific time
intervals, and do not teach the step of "determining whether or
not said essentially a steady state has been established." Foust
teaches out-gassing for 180 minutes in a vacuum oven (8:22-
23), while Farnworth teaches out-gassing for a required time
period between 60 minutes to 120 minutes (paragraph [0033]).
Out-gassing for specific intervals can lead to continued out-
gassing when it is no longer necessary or premature termination
of out-gassing, and eliminates any need to determine whether or
not essentially a steady state has been established. Neither
reference suggests determining whether or not essentially a
steady state has been established in which the out-gassing rate
is determined by the diffusion of the substrate's contamination,
3
Appeal2015-003094
Application 12/947,912
and then lowering the temperature of the substrate upon
determining that the steady state has been reached (as required
by claim 1 ).
App. Br. 9.
In response, the Examiner contends that Farnworth's disclosed
process of outgassing for a required time period "is exemplary and the
amount of time that [sic, for] the outgassing operation is dependent on the
state of curation that is desired (i.e. B-stage or semi-cured)" (Ans. 6 (citing
Farnworth i-f 33)). The Examiner further contends that "[t]he claim
limitations are known result-effective variables since the steady state is
contingent to [sic, on] the amount of contaminants present in the reactor"
(id.).
We agree with Appellants that the Foust and Farnworth disclosures
identified by the Examiner are limited to outgassing for specific time periods
(see Foust col. 8, 1. 21 ("outgassed by baking at 190°C for 180 minutes")
and Farnworth i133 ("a required time period to outgas a solvent ... of about
60 minutes to 120 minutes")). For the reasons detailed by Appellants, these
disclosures contain no teaching or suggestion of the claim 1 limitation
"determining whether or not said essentially a steady state has been
established" (see, e.g., App. Br. 9 and Reply Br. 3--4). Further, the
Examiner has provided no evidence in support of the above quoted belief
that this claim limitation is directed to variables known in the prior art to be
result-effective. The prior art teachings cited by the Examiner do not
disclose a steady state condition or any way of determining whether a steady
state has been established during an outgassing operation.
In summary, the Examiner's rejection is improper because it is based
on mere conclusory statements rather than articulated reasoning with rational
4
Appeal2015-003094
Application 12/947,912
underpinning. See In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
("[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") quoted with approval in KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Therefore, we do not sustain the§ 103 rejection of
claims 1-17 and 24 as unpatentable over Foust in view of Farnworth.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
5