Ex Parte Bernards et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 14, 2018

14211670 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 2018)

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