Ex Parte Yanagi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 27, 2016

12816465 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/816,465 06/16/2010 Yuji YANAGI 20100817A 3415
513 7590 12/29/2016
WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P.
1030 15th Street, N.W.,
Suite 400 East
EXAMINER
CHEN, KEATH T
Washington, DC 20005-1503 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/29/2016 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):
ddalecki@wenderoth.com
eoa@ wenderoth. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUJI YANAGI
Appeal 2015-005103
Application 12/816,465
Technology Center 1700
Before PETER F. KRATZ, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-005103
Application 12/816,465
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the final rejection of
claims 1—10. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appellant’s invention is directed “to a vacuum vapor deposition
apparatus which forms a thin film by depositing multiple vaporization
materials simultaneously on a deposition target” (Spec. 11). The goal of the
vacuum vapor deposition apparatus is to provide a uniform film thickness
distribution of a thin film deposited on a large substrate (Spec. 1 8).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A vacuum vapor deposition apparatus comprising:
a vaporization container that has a plurality of release holes arranged
linearly in an arrangement direction in only one line such that a conductance
by the release holes on both end portion sides of the vaporization container
is larger than at the center of the vaporization container, wherein the
vaporization container is one container containing a vaporization material
on one bottom thereof for the plurality of release holes and the vaporization
container is configured to be heated so as to evaporate or sublimate the
vaporization material such that vapor of the vaporization material is released
through the plurality of release holes, and wherein the vaporization material
is to be deposited on an entire surface of a substrate by relatively moving
the substrate and the vaporization container in a direction perpendicular to
the arrangement direction of the plurality of release holes; and
a current plate fixed in the vaporization container so as to directly face the
vaporization material, the current plate having a plurality of passage holes
through which the vapor passes, the passage holes being arranged on both
sides of the line of the release holes when viewed from the top of the
vaporization container, and as conductance per unit length in the
arrangement direction of the plurality of release holes, conductance by the
passage holes is made proportional to conductance by the release holes
along the arrangement direction, wherein both the conductance by the
release holes and the conductance by the passage holes are increasingly
larger from the center of the vaporization container to each end portion side
of the vaporization container.
2
Appeal 2015-005103
Application 12/816,465
(emphasis added to highlight argued limitations)
Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 1—7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Otsuka et al. (US 2007/0134405 Al, published
June 14, 2007) (“Otsuka”) in view of Ahn et al. (KR 2009-0047953
A, published May 13, 2009) (“Ahn”) and Van Slyke et al. (US
2003/0015140 Al, published Jan. 23, 2003) (“Van Slyke”).
2. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Otsuka in view of Ahn, Van Slyke, and Iwasaki et al. (US
2007/0204798 Al, published Sept. 6, 2007) (“Iwasaki”).
3. Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Otsuka in view of Ahn, Van Slyke, and Negishi
(US 2009/0061090 Al, published Mar. 5, 2009).
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding claim 1 are
located on pages 2 to 4 of the Answer. The Examiner finds, in relevant part,
that Otsuka as modified by Van Slyke1 teaches the subject matter of claim 1,
except for the
conductance per unit length in the arrangement direction of the
plurality of release holes, conductance by the passage holes is
made proportional to conductance by the release holes along the
arrangement direction, wherein both conductance by the release
1 Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s findings or conclusions
regarding the combination of Otsuka and Van Slyke (App. Br. 3—11).
3
Appeal 2015-005103
Application 12/816,465
holes and the conductance by the passage holes are increasingly
larger from the center of the vaporization container to each end
portion side of the vaporization container
(Ans. 2—3). The Examiner finds that Anh’s Figure 4 shows more slits and
larger slits 251 in the fluid path partition wall 250 (corresponding to current
plate 14) in addition to denser spacing of nozzles 160 at both ends of the
front of the container for the purpose of even deposition in the substrate
(Ans. 3). Based on Figure 4, the Examiner finds that conductance by the
passage holes is made proportional to the conductance by the release holes
(Ans. 3).
Appellant argues that Ahn’s Figure 4
does not reasonably teach or suggest that as conductance per
unit length in the arrangement direction of the plurality of
release holes, conductance by the passage holes is made
proportional to conductance by the release holes along the
arrangement direction, and both the conductance by the release
holes and the conductance by the passage holes are increasingly
larger from the center of the vaporization container to each end
portion side of the vaporization container, as required by claim
1.
(App. Br. 5). Appellant contends that the Examiner has not established that
Ahn’s Figure 4 teaches the conductance per unit length limitation (App. Br.
4).
Claim 1 recites that
as conductance per unit length in the arrangement direction of
the plurality of release holes, conductance by the passage holes
[18] is made proportional to conductance by the release holes
[13] along the arrangement direction, wherein both the
conductance by the release holes and the conductance by the
passage holes are increasingly larger from the center of the
4
Appeal 2015-005103
Application 12/816,465
vaporization container to each end portion side of the
vaporization container.
This portion of claim 1 requires that the conductance for each unit of length
along arrangement direction of the vaporization container is such that the
conductance by the passage holes 18 is “proportional” to the conductance
through the release holes 13. The Specification describes that one way
conductance between the passage holes 18 and release holes 13 is made
proportional is by arranging the holes so that the spacing between passage
holes 18 is denser toward the end portions from the center of the current
plate 14 in its longitudinal direction (Spec. 146). The Specification
describes that passage holes 18 in current plate 14 make the vaporization
material 7 immediately below release holes 13 uniform to address the
problem that the vapor is not uniformly dispersed beneath the current plate
14 (Spec. 45, 48). The Specification discloses that without the passage
holes 18 arranged in the fashion with denser spacing at the ends, diffusion of
the vapor amounts reduces the vapor amounts at the ends of the vaporization
container 8 and yields a coating having a non-uniform thickness (H 43, 46).
The Specification states that the ratio of conductance through the passage
holes 18 of the current plate 14 (C2) to the conductance through the release
holes 13 (Cl) is 5.0 or less or preferably 2 or less (Spec. 1 51). The
Specification describes that the profile of the conductance Cl and
conductance C2 mimic one another in that each is larger at the sides than in
the center (Spec. 1 51).
In other words, the Specification discloses that “proportional” within
the meaning of the claim means that the conductance of the vapor per unit
length through the passage holes 18 is made to be the same as the
5
Appeal 2015-005103
Application 12/816,465
conductance per unit length of the vapor through the release holes 13 to
provide for a uniform vaporization amount to the substrate being coated.
The Examiner finds that Ahn’s Figure 4 shows that conductance by
the passage holes is made proportional to conductance by the release holes
(Final Act. 4). The Examiner further finds that the claim does not require
conductance per unit length as argued by Appellant (Ans. 9, 10). The
Examiner findings, however, are erroneous. As a matter of claim
construction, the claim plainly requires that “as conductance per unit length”
the conductance by the passage holes 18 is made proportional to
conductance by the release holes 13. We construe claim 1 supra as
requiring that conductance per unit length of the release holes 13 is made to
be the same as the conductance per unit length of the passage holes 18.
The Examiner findings regarding Ahn’s Figure 4 does not address
what the conductance per unit length would be. The Examiner cites to page
7, paragraphs 3 to 5 of the machine translation of Ahn to teach that an
“increasing [] flow rate (i.e., conductance) from the center to the end
portion” is described (Ans. 7) (emphasis omitted). The Examiner does not
explain how paragraphs 3 to 5 of the machine translation describe a
proportional relationship for the conductance per unit length of the release
holes 13 and passage holes 18 as required by claim 1. The Examiner does
not rely on Van Slyke, Negishi, or Iwasaki to address the claim limitation
argued by Appellant to be missing from the prior art.
On this record, we reverse the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.
6
Appeal 2015-005103
Application 12/816,465
ORDER
REVERSED
7