Christian Linke et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 28, 2020

14110527 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 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.
14/110,527 10/08/2013 Christian Linke SB-679 4094
24131 7590 08/28/2020
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
P O BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480
EXAMINER
BAND, MICHAEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1794
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2020 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):
docket@patentusa.com
office@patentusa.com
vrahimis@patentusa.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTIAN LINKE, MANFRED SULIK, and
MARTIN KATHREIN

Appeal 2019-006585
Application 14/110,527
Technology Center 1700

Before TERRY J. OWENS, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 16–20, 22, 25, and 29–31. 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 Plansee SE.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-006585
Application 14/110,527

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to TUBULAR TARGET HAVING A
PROTECTIVE DEVICE. Claim 16, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
16. A tubular target for cathode atomization, comprising:
a tubular target formed without a backing tube and made
of molybdenum or a molybdenum alloy having a molybdenum
content of at least 50 at.%;
said tubular target having a sputtering surface and an
inner surface to be cooled, at least in certain regions thereof,
with a cooling medium; and
at least one protective device being a coating layer
applied on the inner surface by a coating process, said coating
layer being disposed to separate at least one region of the inner
surface from the cooling medium and to prevent contact of the
cooling medium with the at least one region of the inner
surface, and wherein the coating layer comprises at least one
polymer, said polymer is provided with a filler and said filler
comprises ceramic.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Hochido JP 02301559 A Dec, 13, 1990
Miyagawa WO 2007/049765 A1 May 3, 2007
Leung US 2008/0127887 A1  June 5, 2008 

REJECTIONS
Claims 16–20, 22, 25, and 29–31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Leung in view of Hochido and Miyagawa.
Appeal 2019-006585
Application 14/110,527

3
OPINION
We need address only the sole independent claim, i.e., claim 16. That
claim requires a tubular target formed without a backing tube and having an
inner surface coating layer comprising at least one polymer provided with a
filler comprising ceramic.
Leung discloses a tubular target (Para. 38) which “may not have a
backing tube or bonding layer” (Para. 39) and “may comprise Al, AlNd, Ti,
Mo, MoNb, ITO (Indium Tin Oxide), Zn, ZnO, and combinations thereof”
(Para. 40).
Hochido discloses a planar sputtering target having an integrally-
formed backing plate of the same material as the sputtering target, and to
prevent corrosion defects such as pin holes, nests, and cracks on its water-
cooled surface, is coated on that surface with “AQ, Co, Cr, Cu, Ni, Ti or an
alloy film containing at least one of these metals, a resin film, a chemical
conversion film, enameled coating film subjected to chemical treatment and
the like” (pp. 1–2; Fig. 1). The exemplified sputtering target materials are
“Al-3i”, Al-Cu, and Al-Cr, and the exemplified resin film is a fluorine resin
(p. 2, Examples 1–3).
Miyagawa discloses a solid polymer electrolyte fuel cell
separator (10) having on a metal substrate (11) an electroconductive
layer (12) including a fluorine resin and electroconductive ceramics (p. 2;
Fig.1). “The electroconductive layer has sufficient water repellent property,
corrosion resistance and abrasion resistance so that the fuel cell is operated
for a long time effectively” (p. 2).
Establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of an invention
comprising a combination of known elements requires “an apparent reason
Appeal 2019-006585
Application 14/110,527

4
to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
The Examiner finds that “Miyagawa teaches the composition of
specific fluorine resins that includes a ceramic filler have additional
beneficial advantages such as being water repellant, heat resistant, and
abrasion resistant in addition to corrosion resistant (see p. 3 of OA;
Miyagawa, abstract) that would be desired by Hochido” (Ans. 6).
The Examiner does not provide support for finding that Hochido’s
coating film’s desirable features include abrasion resistance. Regarding
water repellency, the Examiner finds that “[a]voiding condensation of water
droplets via a water repellant coating on the surface of a sputter target would
be desirable in order to maintain water flow (i.e., heat exchange) across the
surface of the sputter target instead of having condensation of water droplets
adhering to the surface via the adhered water droplets” (Ans. 8). The
Examiner, however, does not establish that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have considered water droplet formation by condensation to occur at
Hochido’s sputtering target’s water-cooled surface (p. 2). Moreover, the
Examiner does not establish that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
considered fuel cell separators and sputtering targets to be sufficiently
similar that Miyagama’s fuel cell separator’s characteristics would be
applicable to Hochido’s sputtering target. The record, therefore, indicates
that the Examiner’s rejection is based upon impermissible hindsight in view
of the Appellant’s disclosure. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017
(CCPA 1967) (“A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a
factual basis, and these facts must be interpreted without hindsight
reconstruction of the invention from the prior art”).
Appeal 2019-006585
Application 14/110,527

5
Thus, the Examiner has not provided an apparent reason why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have combined the disclosures in the applied
reference to arrive at the Appellant’s claimed sputtering target.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
16–20, 22,
25, 29–31
103 Leung, Hochido,
Miyagawa
16–20, 22,
25, 29–31

REVERSED