Ex Parte Zhu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 9, 2018

13782935 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2018)

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.
13/782,935 03/01/2013 Mingwei Zhu 015867USAD01 1848
150369 7590 02/13/2018
Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt/AM AT
1211 SW Fifth Ave.
Suite 1900
Portland, OR 97204
EXAMINER
BAND, MICHAEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1754
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/13/2018 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):
IPDocketing @ S CHWABE.com
mscardina @ schwabe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MINGWEI ZHU, VIVEK AGRAWAL,
NAG B. PATIBANDLA, and OMKARAM NALAMASU
Appeal 2017-005379
Application 13/782,935
Technology Center 1700
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1, 3—8, 12, and 13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Applied Materials, Inc. is the Applicant and is identified as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-005379
Application 13/782,935
Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below:
1. A multi-chamber system, comprising:
a physical vapor deposition (PVD) chamber having a
target comprising aluminum nitride for non-reactive sputtering
of aluminum nitride at a temperature between 20 and 200
degrees Celsius; and
a chamber adapted to deposit un-doped or n-type gallium
nitride, or both.
Appellant (App. Br. 4) requests review of the following rejections from
the Examiner’s Final Office Action:2
I. Claims 1,3,4, 7, 8, and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chiyo (US 7,312,472 B2, issued December 25, 2007) and
Vashaei (Z. Vashaei et al., Influence of Sputtering Parameters on the
Crystallinity and Crystal Orientation of AIN Layers Deposited by RF
Sputtering Using the AIN Target, 311 J. Crystal Growth 459-462 (2009)).
II. Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Chiyo, Vashaei, and Hagleitner (US 2008/0042145 Al, published
February 21, 2008).
In addition, the Examiner entered the following new ground of
rejection in the Answer dated December 15, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as
“Ans.”) that was addressed in timely fashion by Appellant in the Reply Brief
dated February 13, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “Reply Br.”)3:
2 The Final Office Action includes a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Final Act. 2. This rejection has been withdrawn by the Examiner. Ans. 2.
Accordingly, the rejection is not before us for review on appeal.
3 The Reply Brief dated February 13, 2017 includes the arguments presented
in the principal brief. Compare Appeal Br., with Reply Br. We therefore
refer to the arguments presented in the Reply Brief for the purposes of this
opinion.
2
Appeal 2017-005379
Application 13/782,935
III. Claims 5 and 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chiyo, Vashaei, and Droopad (US 2001/0013313 Al,
published August 16, 2001).
Appellant argues claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 12 and 13 together (Rejections I
and II). Reply Br. 1. For claims 5 and 6 (Rejection III), Appellant relies on
the arguments presented for claim 1 and does not distinguish the additional
features of these claims based on the additionally cited reference. Reply Br.
2. Accordingly, we decide the appeal as to ah grounds of rejection based on
the arguments made by Appellant in support of patentability of claim 1.
OPINION
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1, 3—8, 12 and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by the Examiner. We add the
following for emphasis.
Claim 1 is directed to a multi-chamber system comprising a physical
vapor deposition (PVD) chamber having a target comprising aluminum
nitride (AIN) for non-reactive sputtering of aluminum nitride at a
temperature between 20 and 200 degrees Celsius.
The Examiner finds Chiyo discloses a multi-chamber system
comprising a sputtering apparatus (PVD chamber) comprising an Al target
for depositing an AIN buffer layer and a chamber having an MOCVD4
apparatus capable of forming an n-type GaN layer. Final Act. 4; Chiyo
Figure 1, col. 6,11. 1—37). The Examiner finds Chiyo does not disclose the
use of a target comprising AIN which is capable of being non-reactively
4 Metal organic chemical vapor deposition. Chiyo 4:28—30.
3
Appeal 2017-005379
Application 13/782,935
sputtered at a temperature between 20—200°C. Final Act. 4. The Examiner
finds Vashaei teaches sputtering of AIN layers through non-reactive RF
sputtering from an AIN target at a temperature range of 200-400°C, which
results in an AIN layer with improved crystallinity. Final Act. 4; Vashaei
459 (Abst.), 460 (Table 1). The Examiner determines it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate an AIN target and
sputter at a temperature of 200°C in Chiyo’s PVD chamber to gain the
advantage of improving crystallinity, as taught by Vashaei. Final Act. 4.
We have considered Appellant’s arguments (Reply Br. 1—2) but are
unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s determination of obviousness.
Appellant’s arguments are primarily based on each individual reference cited
in the rejection as failing to disclose a PVD chamber having a target
comprising aluminum nitride for non-reactive sputtering of aluminum nitride
at a temperature between 20 and 200 degrees Celsius, as required by the
subject matter of independent claim 1. Reply Br. 2. That is, Appellant’s
statements merely point out what a claim recites and, thus, are not
considered arguments for patentability of the claim. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.47(c)(l)(iv).
In addition, Appellant’s statements do not address the Examiner’s
reasons for combining the teachings of the cited art. Final Act. 4; Ans. 9—
12. It is well established that nonobviousness cannot be established by
attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a
combination of prior art disclosures. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425-26 (CCPA 1981)
(“The test [for obviousness]... is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”).
4
Appeal 2017-005379
Application 13/782,935
The Examiner presents a number of reasons why the combined
teachings of the cited art would have led one skilled in the art to the claimed
invention. Ans. 9—12. Given the reasons noted above, Appellant does not
adequately explain why one skilled in the art would not have been capable of
modifying the PVD chamber of Chiyo’s multi-chamber device to
incorporate an AIN target for non-reactive sputtering of the target at a
temperature of 200°C for the reasons disclosed by Vashaei. Final Act 4; see
KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of
ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”); 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). Appellant has not adequately explained why one skilled in
the art would not have expected Vashaei’s AIN target for non-reactive
sputtering at a temperature of 200°C to be suitable for use in Chiyo’s PVD
chamber. Further, Chiyo distinguishes between sputtering and reactive
sputtering, which suggests the use of non-reactive sputtering and
additionally supports the Examiner’s decision. Chiyo col. 3,11. 38-41
(“(Physical Vapor Deposition) method such as sputtering, reactive
sputtering” (emphasis added)).
Thus, Appellant does not point to reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination of obviousness.
Accordingly we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1,
3—8, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) for the reasons presented by the
Examiner and given above.
5
Appeal 2017-005379
Application 13/782,935
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3—8, 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are 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)(1).
AFFIRMED
6