Ex Parte Sharma et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2016

13865855 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/865,855 04/18/2013 Sunity Sharma
20306 7590 06/23/2016
MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
300 S. WACKER DRIVE
32NDFLOOR
CHICAGO, IL 60606
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.
13-232-US-CON2 3058
EXAMINER
JIANG, LISHA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1712
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/23/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUNITY SHARMA and JASPREET SINGH DHAU
Appeal2015-001629
Application 13/865,855
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-7 and 9-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below:
Appeal2015-001629
Application 13/865,855
1. A method, comprising:
depositing a palladium precursor solution onto a
substrate, wherein the palladium precursor solution includes a
palladium carboxylate, a Lewis base ligand, and a solvent;
evaporating at least a portion of the solvent in the
palladium precursor solution to leave a palladium precursor on
the substrate; and
decomposing the palladium precursor on the substrate to
produce a pattern of active palladium, wherein the active
palladium forms a non-conductive layer on the substrate.
Appellants (see Appeal Brief, generally) request review of the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Sharma (US 5,980,998, issued November 9,
1999), Haertling (US 2002/0163706 Al, published November 7, 2002) and
McConnell (US 6,165,912, issues December 26, 2000). App. Br. 2; Final
OPINION
Prior Art Rejection1
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and
the Examiner, we AFFIRM the Examiner's prior art rejection of claims 1-7
and 9-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by the
Examiner and add the following for emphasis.
1 Appellants present arguments for independent claim 1 and do not present
separate arguments for the dependent claims. See Appeal Brief, generally.
Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the subject matter before
us on appeal. Claims 2-7 and 9-20 stand or fall with claim 1.
2
Appeal2015-001629
Application 13/865,855
Appellants' invention is directed to a method of depositing palladium
precursors to facilitate subsequent deposition of another metal onto a
surface. Spec. i-fi-13, 7. Appellants' invention achieves this by depositing
and subsequently decomposing a palladium precursor on the substrate to
produce a non-conductive layer of active palladium. Id. at i1 7. Thus,
independent claim 1 is directed to a method of providing a non-conductive
layer of active palladium on a surface.
The Examiner found the combined teachings of Sharma and Haertling
disclose a method of depositing a palladium precursor solution onto the
substrate that differs from the claimed invention in that Sharma does not
explicitly teach the catalytic active palladium precipitates to form a non-
conductive layer of active palladium. Final Act. 3-5; Sharma Figure 1, col.
3, 11. 48-58, col. 4, 11. 18-37, col. 5, 11. 39----67, col. 6, 11. 1-14, 36-39, col. 7,
11. 12-25, col. 9, 11. 43--49; and Haertling i122. The Examiner found
McConnell teaches forming a nonconductive seed layer of active palladium
subsequently used as an activating catalyst in a subsequent electroless
deposition of a conductive layer. Final Act. 5; McConnell col. 6, 11. 7-25,
36--41. The Examiner found it would have been obvious to one skilled in
the art to modify the process from the combined teachings of Sharma and
Haertling to deposit the active palladium pattern of Sharma and Haertling as
a nonconductive layer to activate a surface for a subsequent conductive
pattern formation using cheaper and more abundant metals, such as copper.
Final Act. 5.
Appellants argue McConnell does not disclose depositing the seeding
agent results in a nonconductive layer and that the Examiner does not
provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning or the calculations used to
3
Appeal2015-001629
Application 13/865,855
support the assertion that the concentration of McConnell's seeding agent
per area is too low to be considered a conductive layer. App. Br. 3; Reply
Br. 5---6.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments and agree with the
Examiner's determination of obviousness for the reasons provided in the
Answer. Ans. 3. Moreover, in rejecting dependent claim 9, the Examiner
found McConnell teaches a seeding agent concentration on the seeding layer
of 1.767xlo-12 to 1.767xlo-10 gram atoms of palladium per square
millimeter, which is less than the claimed concentration.2 Final Act. 6.
Appellants have not contested this finding with respect to dependent claim 9.
Appellants argue the Examiner's rationale for combining the cited art
is contrary to the teachings of Sharma because Sharma uses the precursor to
form a conductive pattern coating directly on the substrate. App. Br. 6-7;
Reply Br. 2-5. According to Appellants, the Examiner's asserted
combination would replace Shanna's one-step process with a more
complicated two-step process that uses a more expensive material
(palladium) without providing an articulated rational basis for why a person
of ordinary skill in the art would do so. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 8-9.
We are also unpersuaded by these arguments for the reasons presented
by the Examiner. Ans. 5. Moreover, Sharma discloses a method comprising
2 McConnell discloses palladium is deposited as 1012 to 1014 atoms or
molecules of seeding agent per cm2 (col. 6, 11. 36-41 ). If we divide 1012 to
1014 atoms/cm2 by Avogadro's Number (6.023 x 1023 atoms per mole), we
get a range of 1.66 x 10-12 to 1.66 x 10-10 moles per cm2. Dividing the result
by 100 to obtain the number of moles per square millimeter, we obtain 1.66
x 10-14 to 1.66 x 10-12 moles/mm2. Multiplying this result by the molecular
weight of palladium (i.e., 106.4 g/mole), we obtain: 1.76 x 10-12 to
1. 7 6 x 10-10 gram atoms palladium per mm2.
4
Appeal2015-001629
Application 13/865,855
repeated depositions of the same or dissimilar metals to obtain thicker or
multiple layers. Sharma col. 5, 11. 32-39. Thus, one skilled in the art would
understand that Shanna's first deposited layer serves to facilitate subsequent
deposition of a subsequently deposited metal onto a surface. As
acknowledged by Appellants and the Examiner, McConnell is also directed
to deposition of multiple metal layers where the first deposited metal layer
facilitates the deposition of a subsequent metal layer onto a surface. App.
Br. 6; Reply Br. 9; Ans. 5; McConnell col. 6, 11. 5-25, 36-41. Given these
disclosures, Appellants have not adequately explained why one skilled in the
art would not have been capable of modifying the multiple deposition
process of Sharma by using McConnell's concentration of seeding agent in
Shanna's first deposition layer. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed.
Cir. 1985) (skill is presumed on the part of one of ordinary skill in the art);
In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Appellants have not
adequately explained patentable distinction between the claimed invention
and the prior art.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's prior art rejection of claims
1-7 and 9-20 for the reasons presented by the Examiner and given above.
ORDER
The Examiner's prior art rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-20 is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
5
Appeal2015-001629
Application 13/865,855
AFFIRMED
6