Seagate Technology LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 2, 2020

14820160 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 2020)

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.
14/820,160 08/06/2015 Samuel L. Tanaka STL 070410.00 7455
64776 7590 09/02/2020
Holzer Patel Drennan - Seagate Technology LLC
216 16th Street
Suite 1350
Denver, CO 80202
EXAMINER
CHEN, KEATH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2020 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):
docket@hpdlaw.com
hiplaw@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SAMUEL L. TANAKA, CHRISTOPHER L. PLATT,
and THOMAS L. GREENBERG
____________

Appeal 2019-005796
Application 14/820,160
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–14. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant states the real party in interest is Seagate
Technology LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-005796
Application 14/820,160

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s Specification is directed to manufacturing of hard disk
drives (HDDs) using plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD)
where a hot filament electron source deposits a thin film onto a substrate.
Spec. ¶ 1. The disclosure identifies reducing defects and non-uniformity in
the deposited substrate as one of the manufacturing challenges, which
Appellant addresses by adding a magnet array to influence plasma within the
deposition chamber. See Spec. ¶¶ 16, 20, 21. Exemplary claims 1 and 8
under appeal read as follows:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a deposition chamber;
a cathode in the deposition chamber,
wherein the cathode comprises a filament;
a magnet adjacent to and outside of a deposition
chamber;
a magnet holder connected to the magnet; and
a motor configured to create an asymmetric field about
the filament through movement of the magnet, wherein
the asymmetric field reduces an asymmetric
distribution of plasma in the deposition chamber, and
the motor is operable to move the magnet closer to
and away from the deposition chamber.
8. An apparatus comprising:
a deposition chamber including a cathode, wherein the
deposition chamber is a chemical vapor deposition chamber;
and
a means for creating an asymmetric field about the
cathode, wherein
Appeal 2019-005796
Application 14/820,160

3
the asymmetric field reduces an asymmetric
distribution of plasma in the deposition chamber thereby
creating a deposition averaging effect during movement
and increasing thin film layer uniformity, and
the means for creating an asymmetric field about
the cathode includes a magnet outside of the deposition
chamber.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 8–14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being
anticipated by Chen (US 6,784,096 B2; iss. Aug. 31, 2004).2 Final Act. 3–6;
Ans. 3–5.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kanarov (US 2004/0163766 Al; pub. Aug. 26, 2004).
Final Act. 6–8; Ans. 5.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chueh (US 2014/0008213 Al; pub. Jan. 9, 2014). Final
Act. 8; Ans. 6.
Claims 1 and 3–7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lee (US 5,476,693; iss. Dec. 19, 1995), Kadlec (US
2006/0054493 A1; pub. Mar. 16, 2006), and Kanarov. Final Act. 8–13; Ans.
6–9.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lee, Kadlec, Kanarov, and Wu (US 2003/0192646 Al;
pub. Oct. 16, 2003). Final Act. 14; Ans. 9.

2 The Examiner also indicated that Gopalraja (US 6, 277,249 B1; iss. Aug.
21, 2001) is the evidence to show “’096 is to improve uniformity.” Final
Act. 3; Ans. 3.
Appeal 2019-005796
Application 14/820,160

4
Newly added rejections in the Answer
Claims 8, 9, 12, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lee and Kadlec.3 Ans. 9–11.
Claims 10, 11, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lee, Kadlec, and Chen. Ans. 11–12.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred. With respect to the rejection of claims
1–7 and the new ground of rejection of claims 8–14, we disagree with
Appellant’s arguments, and we adopt as our own (1) the pertinent findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal
is taken (Final Act. 8–14; Ans. 9–12) and (2) the corresponding reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s
Appeal Brief (Ans. 15–18). We concur with the Examiner’s determinations
and emphasize the following.
Rejection of claim 8 over Lee and Kadlec
In rejecting claim 8, the Examiner relies on Lee as disclosing the
recited chemical vapor deposition chamber including a cathode but not a
means for creating an asymmetric field about the cathode. Ans. 10 (citing
Lee, Figs. 3A, 3B; col. 3, ll. 39–44, 54–58). The Examiner further finds that
Kadlec discloses a magnet for creating an asymmetric field that results in a
uniform coating thickness distribution. Ans. 10–11 (citing Kadlec, Fig. 4;

3 The Examiner also indicated that US Patent 6, 277,249 B1 is the evidence
to show “asymmetric magnetic field to improve plasma uniformity.” Ans. 9.
Appeal 2019-005796
Application 14/820,160

5
¶¶ 70, 71, 96). As for the rationale for combining the references, the
Examiner states:
Before the effective filing dates of the claimed invention, it
would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in
the art to have added a magnet system 35 having an
asymmetrically disposed magnets 40 on a carrier plate 36
rotationally moved by a motor outside of the vacuum chamber,
as taught by ‘493, to the apparatus in Fig. 38 of ‘493, for the
purpose of uniform coating thickness, as taught by ‘493
([0096], last sentence) and to alleviate the non-uniform plasma
column due to twisted filament of ‘693 (col. 3, lines 54–58).
Note a person would have known the use of asymmetric
magnetic field to improve plasma uniformity, see US 5880034,
abstract.
Ans. 11 (emphases added).
With respect to the disclosure of Kadlec teaching the recited “means
for creating an asymmetric field about the cathode,” Appellant contends that
the reference “does not mention a cathode anywhere” and fails to teach “an
asymmetric field about the cathode.” Reply Br. 5–6. According to
Appellant, paragraphs 26–27 and 49–50 describe the embodiment shown in
Figure 1 as creating a magnetic field above the target surface having a gap
between the target and the field. Reply Br. 6. Appellant asserts that the
combination of Lee and Kadlec does not teach or suggest the recited “a
means for creating an asymmetric field about the cathode . . . and, the means
for creating an asymmetric field about the cathode includes a magnet outside
of the deposition chamber.” Id.
We are not persuaded. Kadlec was relied on for its disclosure of using
a magnetic field above the deposition chamber for applying material onto a
substrate, such as a “plasma-enhanced CVD” chamber” (see ¶ 5), for
achieving “uniform coating thickness distribution” (see ¶ 96). Although
Appeal 2019-005796
Application 14/820,160

6
Kadlec does not expressly mention a cathode, the rejection modifies Lee’s
CVD chamber where the cathode filament causes a one-sided bias and non-
uniform coating, with Kadlec’s teaching with respect to creating a magnetic
field that affects the distribution of the coating thickness in a PECVD
chamber. Additionally, the Supreme Court made clear that when
considering obviousness, “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Furthermore, the skilled artisan is “a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” and this is a case in which the skilled
artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like
pieces of a puzzle.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.
As a result, the proposed combination properly suggests “a means for
creating an asymmetric field about the cathode,” as recited in claim 8.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 8, as well
as claims 9, 12, and 14, which are not argued separately, as being
unpatentable over Lee and Kadlec.
Rejection of claims 10, 11, and 13 over Lee, Kadlec, and Chen
Appellant argues the patentability of claims 10, 11, and 13 based on
the same reasons discussed for claim 8, from which they depend. See Reply
Br. 6. We therefor sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 10, 11,
and 13 over Lee, Kadlec, and Chen.
Rejection of claims 1 and 3–7 over Lee, Kadlec, and Kanarov
Similar to the rejection of claim 8 above, the Examiner finds Lee
discloses a deposition chamber including a cathode which suffers from non-
Appeal 2019-005796
Application 14/820,160

7
uniform coating thickness when the cathode filament is biased to one side
over time, as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 9 (citing Lee, Figs. 3A, 3B; col.
3, ll. 39–44, 54–58). The Examiner further relies on Kadlec as disclosing a
moving magnet disposed outside the deposition chamber for creating an
asymmetric field that results in a uniform coating thickness distribution and
on Kanarov as disclosing the adjustments made to the position of the magnet
to introduce an asymmetric field. Final Act. 10–11 (citing Kadlec, Fig. 4;
¶¶ 70, 71, 96; Kanarov, Fig. 2, ¶¶ 56, 60, 88). As for the rationale for
combining the references, the Examiner states:
Before the effective filing dates of the claimed invention, it
would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in
the art to have replaced the magnet system 35 of ‘493 with two
or more magnet arrays on planets 426a and 426b with
independent motors, as taught by ‘766, and then combined with
‘693, for the purpose of flattening out asymmetric peaks in the
plasma distribution ([0067]). Note the two planets are at least
two plates rotating relative to each other because of the
independent motor.
Final Act. 13 (emphasis added).
Appellant contends Figures 2 and 2B of Kanarov show rotating
magnets 225 by motor 228 and rotating vessel 203 by some other means.
Appeal Br. 10 (citing Kanarov, Figs. 2, 2B, ¶¶ 49, 74). Appellant also
argues Kanarov discloses another embodiment that includes motors 594 and
595 that rotate magnets 525 in X-Y direction, which is not “closer to and
away from the deposition chamber,” as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 10–
11 (citing Kanarov, Figs 5A, 5B, 5C, ¶ 92).
In response, the Examiner points out that Figure 2 of Kanarov shows
the height of the magnets are adjusted by adjusting the length of shaft 227,
as indicated by arrow 213. Ans. 16. According to the Examiner, adjusting
Appeal 2019-005796
Application 14/820,160

8
the length of shaft 227 moves magnets 225 “closer to and away from the
deposition chamber” Id.
We agree and note that the disclosure of Kanarov supports the
Examiner’s findings with respect to the movement of the magnets.
Additionally, we disagree with Appellant that Figure 5B of Kanarov does
not show moving magnets in two separate directions. In fact, paragraph 92
of Kanarov describes the movement of magnets illustrated by arrows 570
and 571 as “magnet 525 is moved to two dimensions linearly by motors 594
and 595, as indicated at 570 and 571” and “[s]upports 590 and 592 enable a
first dimension of movement as do supports 591 and 593.” Kanarov ¶ 92.
In view of the discussion above, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1,
as well as claims 3–7, which are not argued separately, as being
unpatentable over Lee, Kadlec, and Kanarov.
Rejection of claim 2 over Lee, Kadlec, Kanarov, and Wu
Appellant argues the patentability of claim 2 based on the same
reasons discussed for claim 1, from which claim 2 depends. See Appeal Br.
11–12. We therefor sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 2 over
Lee, Kadlec, Kanarov, and Wu.
Conclusion
As discussed herein, we sustain at least one rejection for each of the
appealed claims. We therefore do not reach the other §§ 102 and 103
rejections regarding claims 8–14 in this appeal because our discussion above
is dispositive with respect to all the appealed claims.

Appeal 2019-005796
Application 14/820,160

9
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
8, 9, 12, 14 103 Lee, Kadlec 8, 9, 12, 14
10, 11, 13 103 Lee, Kadlec, Chen 10, 11, 13
1, 3–7 103 Lee, Kadlec,
Kanarov
1, 3–7
2 103 Lee, Kadlec,
Kanarov, Wu
2
Overall
Outcome
1–14
FINALITY AND RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED