Ex Parte Bernards et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 14, 201814211670 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/211,670 03/14/2014 Roger Bernards 34238 7590 08/16/2018 ARTHUR G. SCHAIER CARMODY TORRANCE SANDAK & HENNESSEY LLP 195 CHURCH STREET P.O. BOX 1950 NEW HAVEN, CT 06509-1950 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 31 l 13-03A 8985 EXAMINER WONG,EDNA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1795 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/16/2018 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): patents@carmodylaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROGER BERNARDS and RICHARD BELLEMARE Appeal2017-009974 Application 14/211,670 Technology Center 1700 Before TERRY J. OWENS, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1, 5, 7, and 15-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed March 14, 2014 ("Spec."), the Final Office Action dated March 28, 2017 ("Final Act."), the Amended Appeal Brief filed May 8, 2017 ("Appeal Br."), the Examiner's Answer dated July 13, 2017 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed July 20, 2017 ("Reply Br."). 2 Appellant is the Applicant, OMG Electronic Chemicals, LLC, which, according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2017-009974 Application 14/211,670 The subject matter on appeal relates to copper plating solutions, and methods of using such solutions. Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claims on appeal. 1. A method of electroplating copper onto a substrate compnsmg: providing a substrate, wherein said substrate is a metal seed layer on a silicon solar cell wafer comprising an aluminum backside; and electroplating copper on said substrate with a copper plating solution comprising: a source of copper ions, wherein said source of copper ions is copper sulfate; a lithium sulfate conductivity salt; and an additive selected from the group of imidazoles, imidazole derivatives, thiazoles, thiazole derivatives, compounds that contain a quaternary nitrogen atoms, and polymeric quaternary compounds; wherein said copper plating solution has a pH between 1.7 and 3.5, is free of chloride ions, and produces a bright copper deposit, and wherein the aluminum backside of the silicon solar cell wafer remains unaffected after electroplating. Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.). DISCUSSION The Examiner maintains the rejections of claims 1, 5, 7, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over Wei et al. (US 2014/0008234 Al, published January 9, 2014) ("Wei") in view of Hariklia Deligianni et al., The Next Frontier: Electrodeposition for Solar Cell Fabrication, The Electrochemical Society Interface, (2011) ("Deligianni"), King et al. (US 5,174,886, issued 2 Appeal2017-009974 Application 14/211,670 December 29, 1992) ("King"), and Watson (US 4,376,685, issued March 15, 1983) ("Watson"). Ans. 2. We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Cf Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("it has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejections")). After considering each of Appellant's contentions, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action, the Answer, and below. The Examiner finds that Wei teaches all the steps of claim 1 's method of electroplating copper onto a substrate, including the recited copper plating solution, but does not disclose that its copper plating solution comprises a lithium sulfate conductivity salt. Ans. 2-5 (citing Wei ,r,r 15, 16, 23, 27, 30, 31, 39, 40, 67). Specifically the Examiner finds that Wei discloses that its electroplating solution may include "conductivity salts," but fails to specify that the salt be lithium sulfate. Ans. 5 ( citing Wei ,r 31 ). To account for this difference, the Examiner finds that King, like Wei, teaches acid copper electroplating using acid copper plating baths that contain an alkali metal salt "to maintain a lower acid concentration resulting in easier maintenance and more consistent plating." Id. at 5---6 (citing King, 2:32-33, 3:4--24). The Examiner further finds that King teaches acid copper electroplating using acid copper plating baths that contain an alkali metal salt, where the alkali metal "may be lithium, sodium, potassium or mixtures thereof," with lithium salt being "[p]articularly useful," and the alkali metal 3 Appeal2017-009974 Application 14/211,670 salt "may be a sulfate, perchlorate, phosphate or the like or mixtures thereof." Id. at 7-8 ( emphasis omitted). The Examiner explains that because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations for use in either the same field or a different field based on the function or property of the known material if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, based on King, to modify Wei's copper plating solution to include lithium sulfate as its conductivity salt to provide an electroplating plating solution effective for plating a silicon wafer with an aluminum backside. Ans. 5---6. Appellant argues that Wei teaches a heavily acidic solution with a pH less than 1, and thus does not teach or suggest a plating solution with a pH between 1.7 and 3.5 as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 5. In addition, Appellant argues that because Wei teaches that its plating solution can include halide ions, it does not teach or suggest that its plating solution is free of chloride ions. Id. at 6. Appellant also argues that because Wei's plating solution has a low pH and includes chloride ions, the solution will result in attack on the aluminum backside of its wafer after electroplating. Id. (citing Spec. ,r 12). Appellant's arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. Wei teaches that its plating solution has a pH ranging from "less than 1 to 12," which encompasses the pH range recited in claim 1. Additionally, Wei teaches that halogen ions are an additive that may be included in its electroplating solution (Wei ,r 31 ), and that the halogen ions include chloride, fluoride, and bromide (id. ,r 35). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that based on Wei's teachings, it would have been obvious to one of 4 Appeal2017-009974 Application 14/211,670 ordinary skill in the art to prepare Wei's electroplating solution with halogen ions, such as fluoride or bromide ions, and thus be "free of chloride ions" as required by claim 1. Because Wei teaches claim 1 's electroplating solution-a solution free of chloride ions, and having a pH between 1. 7 and 3.5-we are not convinced that Wei's solution would attack the aluminum backside and the seed layer of its wafer after electroplating as Appellant contends. Appellant argues that copper plating compositions are not mix and match proposals, and therefore one skilled in the art would not simply pull ingredients from King for inclusion in Wei's copper plating bath without reasoning to do so. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant's argument is not persuasive of reversible error. Wei teaches that its copper plating bath may include sodium sulfate as a conductivity salt, and King teaches sodium sulfate and preferably lithium sulfate as an additive to copper plating baths. Ans. 13-14. The Examiner has identified a reason for using lithium sulfate instead of sodium sulfate in Wei's plating bath-"to maintain a lower acid concentration resulting in easier maintenance and more consistent plating." Final Act. 8. On this record, Appellant does not explain why the Examiner's reasoning is erroneous or why the use of lithium sulfate in Wei's plating bath would have been anything more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (assessing the obviousness of claims to a combination of prior art elements by asking "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions."). 5 Appeal2017-009974 Application 14/211,670 We are also not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner has chosen an imidazole from King and Watson from hundreds or thousands of possible additives without motivation or suggestion to do so. Appeal Br. 7, 8. Nor are we persuaded by Appellant's argument that even if the references are combined, it would not yield the claimed invention. Id. at 8. Wei teaches that its copper plating bath may include levelers (Wei ,r 31 ), and King teaches copper plating bath that includes levelers, such as imidazoles (King, 3:6-13). King further teaches that the leveling additive is not critical to the performance of the plating baths, and may be chosen from a variety of leveling agents. King, 3:60-64. Watson teaches a copper plating bath that can include 2-aminothiazole (Watson, 9:40-45) as an additive to "prevent roughness formation at high current densities and increase hardness of the electrodeposit" (id. at 1 :48-50). On this record, Appellant does not explain why, based on Wei, King, and Watson's disclosure, the use of imidazole or more particularly 2-aminothiazole, in Wei's plating bath would have been anything more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. Appellant argues that there are many different types of copper plating solutions designed for a variety of different purposes-silicon wafers, solar cells, printed circuit boards, general metal finishing, and general plating on plastics. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant contends that the Examiner defines the relevant art "too broadly," and "without [a] strong motivation" one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been led to use ingredients from one plating bath for another plating bath for a different purpose. Appeal Br. 7-8. Appellant's argument is not persuasive of reversible error. The Federal Circuit counsels us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly. 6 Appeal2017-009974 Application 14/211,670 Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 402 (2007) ( ''familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle")). Appellant broadly defines their field of invention as relating to copper plating, which can be used to plate copper onto a number of substrates, for example printed circuit boards (PCB), solar cells, and integrated circuit (IC) substrates. Spec. ,r 3. Wei, King, and Watson disclose copper plating baths, and ingredients used therein, specifically, leveling additives, such as imidazoles, and more specifically, 2- aminothiazole. Wei, Abstract, ,r 31; King, Abstract, 4:6-13; Watson, 1:8- 13, 9:40-45. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that he Examiner erred in finding that Wei, King, and Watson are analogous art, and are properly relied upon to support the Examiner's obviousness rejection. With respect to claim 17, Appellant argues that "none of the cited references alone or in combination reveal or suggest that their plating baths or processes increase the efficiency of the solar cell." Appeal Br. 8. Appellant's argument is not persuasive of reversible error. As the Examiner determines, because all of the elements of the claimed method were accounted for in the prior art, [it] would have been reasonably expected by a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made that the efficiency of the silicon solar cell wafer is increased after the step of electroplating. Ans. 18-19. Appellant has not adequately explained or directed us to evidence showing that electroplating copper on a silicon solar cell wafer 7 Appeal2017-009974 Application 14/211,670 using Wei's copper electroplating solution, as modified by Deligianni, King, and Watson, would not necessarily increase the efficiency of the wafer. In sum, we have carefully considered Appellant's arguments, but we are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner's obviousness analysis. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 5, 7, and 15-20. DECISION For the above reasons, the rejection of claims 1, 5, 7, and 15-20 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation