Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 28, 2020

15404775 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 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.
15/404,775 01/12/2017 Padma Gopalan 00300-0216-02 6676
96854 7590 09/28/2020
Bell & Manning, LLC
Michelle Manning
2801 West Beltline Highway
Ste. 210
Madison, WI 53713
EXAMINER
MELLOTT, JAMES M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1712
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2020 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):
cbell@bellmanning.com
docketing@bellmanning.com
mmanning@bellmanning.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PADMA GOPALAN, DANIEL PATRICK SWEAT,
XIANG YU, and MYUNGWOONG KIM
Appeal 2019-006905
Application 15/404,775
Technology Center 1700
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
MICHAEL G. MCMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s October 30, 2018 decision to finally reject claims 1–15 and 21
(“Final Act.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal 2019-006905
Application 15/404,775

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims on appeal are directed to a method of transferring a pattern
into a substrate using a PtBuSt-b-P2VP block copolymer. A PtBuSt-b-2VP
block copolymer is poly-tert-butyl styrene-block-poly2-vinyl-pyridine block
copolymer (Appeal Br. 4). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method of transferring a pattern into a substrate using a
PtBuSt-b-P2VP block copolymer, the method comprising:
depositing the PtBuSt-b-P2VP block copolymer over the
substrate and subjecting the PtBuSt-b-P2VP block copolymer to
conditions that induce it to self-assemble into a plurality of
domains;
selectively removing some of the domains, such that the
self-assembled PtBuSt-b-P2VP block copolymer layer defines a
pattern over the substrate; and
transferring the pattern into the substrate to provide a
patterned substrate.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Dobisz US 2009/0311363 A1 December 17, 2009
Millward US 2012/0046415 A1 February 23, 2012
Park US 2014/0187054 A1 July 3, 2014

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Park in view of Dobisz.
2. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Park in view of Dobisz, and further in view of Millward.
Appeal 2019-006905
Application 15/404,775

3
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Park is directed towards a method of
patterning a substrate using a block copolymer, in which the block
copolymer can be PtBuSt-b-P2VP (Final Act. 3, citing Park, Title and ¶ 42).
The Examiner further finds that the PtBuSt-b-P2VP is suggested by Park’s
indication that its block copolymer may include a block copolymer
containing two types of polymer components including styrene or a
derivative thereof as a repeating unit in which the derivative of styrene
includes tert-butylstyrene and 2-vinylpyridine, based on the following
passages from Park (Final Act. 3, citing Park, ¶¶ 66 and 68). The Examiner
also finds that Park discloses:
depositing the PtBuSt-b-P2VP BCP over the substrate
and subjecting the BCP to conditions that induce it to self-
assemble into a plurality of domains (claim 1);
selectively removing some of the domains, such that the
self-assembled BCP layer defines a pattern over the substrate
(¶ 77); and
using the BCP pattern as a mask and the like in a
subsequent fabricating process (¶ 42)
(Final Act. 3–4). The Examiner further finds that Park does not teach details
regarding use of the block copolymer pattern as a mask, but that these details
are taught by Dobisz (Final Act. 4).
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to use the
process steps disclosed by Dobisz with the block copolymer mask disclosed
by Park because “the process of [Dobisz] is an art known subsequent
fabrication process in the art of using block copolymers and thus would have
predictably been a suitable post fabrication process” (id.).
Appellant’s first argument is that, contrary to the Examiner’s findings,
PtBuSt-b-P2VP is not disclosed by Park (Appeal Br. 4). Appellant argues
Appeal 2019-006905
Application 15/404,775

4
that although Park discloses that its block copolymers can include a
polystyrene block or a polystyrene derivative block, it does not disclose the
use of block copolymer where both blocks are polystyrene derivative blocks,
which is what characterizes the claimed PtBuSt-b-P2VP block copolymer
(id.). As articulated by Appellant:
For purposes of simplicity, polystyrene will be abbreviated
herein as “PS” and polystyrene derivative will be abbreviated
herein as “PSD”. Thus, while Park teaches BCPs having the
structure PS-b-PSD, Park does not teach BCPs having the
structure PSD-b-PSD
(Appeal Br. 4–5).
The Examiner supports his findings regarding Park’s teachings on the
structure of its block copolymers from the following language in Park: “The
examples of the BCP [block copolymer] may include a BCP consisting of
two types of polymer components including styrene or a derivative thereof
as a repeating unit” (Park, ¶ 66, emphasis added). According to Appellant,
the use of the term “or” in the foregoing sentence necessarily means that
Park’s BCP can include either a styrene block or a styrene derivative block,
but cannot include two different styrene derivative blocks (Appeal Br. 5).
Appellant advances several reasons why the Examiner’s interpretation
of the sentence in question is incorrect. First, according to Appellant, the
Examiner’s interpretation would allow for a BCP with styrene blocks and
styrene blocks, which would be a homopolymer, not a copolymer (id.). This
argument is not persuasive, because a person of skill in the art would have
understood that a block copolymer is, in fact, a copolymer, and thus could
not solely consist of styrene monomers.
Second, Appellant points to the remainder of Park’s paragraph 66,
which identifies numerous examples of block copolymers which consist of
Appeal 2019-006905
Application 15/404,775

5
“a polymer component including at least one selected from styrene or a
derivative thereof as a repeating unit” and a different polymer unit (Appeal
Br. 6). Appellant argues that this disclosure in paragraph 66, along with the
fact that none of the 18 styrene or styrene-derivative containing BCPs listed
in paragraph 71 of Park includes two styrene-derivative blocks means that
“Park does not teach the specific BCP (PtBuSt-b-P2VP) recited in claim 1”
(Appeal Br. 6–7).
We agree with Appellant that Park does not specifically disclose the
use of PtBuSt-b-P2VP. The totality of Park’s disclosure, as discussed in
detail at pages 4–7 of the Appeal Brief, shows that Park does not specifically
contemplate the use of a PSD-b-PSD block copolymer nor, therefore, the use
specifically of the claimed PtBuSt-b-P2VP block copolymer. To establish a
prima facie case of obviousness, the Examiner must show that each and
every limitation of the claim is described or suggested by the prior art or
would have been obvious based on the knowledge of those of ordinary skill
in the art. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In this instance,
the Examiner has not provided an adequate explanation of why a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have modified the teachings of Park to
produce a PSD-b-PSD block copolymer. Without being motivated to
produce that general structure, a person of skill in the art would have had no
reason to use the PtBuSt-b-P2VP block copolymer required by claim 1.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 1 over Park and
Dobisz. Because each of the remaining claims depends from claim 1, we
also reverse the rejections of the remaining claims (the disclosure of
Millward does not remedy the foregoing deficiencies of Park).
Appeal 2019-006905
Application 15/404,775

6
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–14, 21 103 Park, Dobisz 1–14, 21
15 103 Park, Dobisz,
Millward
15
Overall
Outcome
1–15, 21

REVERSED