Ex parte Blackwell et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 25, 2000

08266783 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 25, 2000)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of
the Board.
Paper No. 23
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte KIM J. BLACKWELL, PEI C. CHEN,
ALLAN R. KNOLL, LUIS J. MATIENZO and RICHARD D. WEALE
__________
Appeal No. 1997-3314
Application 08/266,783
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before WARREN, OWENS and DELMENDO, Administrative Patent
Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the examiner’s final rejection of
claims 1-4 and 6-13, which are all of the claims remaining in
the application.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed toward a
Appeal No. 1997-3314
Application 08/266,783

2
process for coating a layer of chromium and then a layer of
copper onto a specified polyimide substrate. Appellants state
that the process is especially applicable for making
metallized integrated circuit substrates (specification, page
1, lines 12-13). Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A process for providing a metallic layer on a
polyimide substrate which comprises providing a substrate of a
polyimide from diaryl dianhydride and a diamine; sputter
coating a layer of chromium of 200 angstroms or less on said
substrate at a deposition rate of about 4 angstroms/second or
less, and wherein the temperature of said polyimide substrate
during the sputtering is about 60EC or less and resulting in
improved adhesion, followed by coating a layer of copper on
said layer of chromium.
THE REFERENCES
Belke, Jr. et al. (Belke) 4,466,874 Aug. 21,
1984
Ho et al. (Ho) 4,720,401 Jan. 19,
1988
Sallo 4,863,808 Sep. 5,
1989
Clabes et al. (Clabes) 4,886,681 Dec. 12,
1989
Handbook of Adhesives 597-99 & 612-13 (Irving Skeist, ed., Van
Nostrand Reinhold 1977) (Skeist).
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-4 and 6-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Sallo in view of Skeist and Ho,
Appeal No. 1997-3314
Application 08/266,783

3
Clabes or Belke.
OPINION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-12, and
reverse the rejection of claim 13.
Appellants state that the claims are grouped as follows:
1) claims 1-4, 6-10 and 12, 2) claim 11, and 3) claim 13
(brief, page 3). We therefore limit our discussion to claims
11 and 13 and one claim from the other group, i.e., claim 1.
See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1566 n.2, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1129
n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1995); 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1995).
Claim 1
Sallo discloses a process for making flexible electric
circuitry by sputter coating a layer of chromium onto a
polyimide substrate and coating a layer of copper on the
chromium layer (col. 1, lines 1-12; col. 2, lines 53-58; col.
3, lines 59-60). The chromium layer preferably has a
thickness of from 50 to 500D, and a thickness of 50D is
exemplified (col. 3, lines 62-66; col. 4, lines 51-52). The
polyimide is a polyimide “such as” Kapton (col. 3, lines 48-®
50). In our opinion, this indication that other polyimides
Appeal No. 1997-3314
Application 08/266,783

It is axiomatic that our consideration of the prior art1
must, of necessity, include consideration of the admitted
prior art. See In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039-40, 228 USPQ
685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Davis, 305 F.2d 501, 503, 134
USPQ 256, 258 (CCPA 1962).
4
are suitable would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary
skill in the art, use of commercially available polyimides
generally such as UPILEX S which, appellants acknowledge, was®
commercially available and is made from a diaryl dianhydride
and a diamine (specification, page 2, lines 24-31).1
Sallo does not disclose the chromium sputtering
deposition rate or temperature. However, Clabes discloses a
method, in the electronics field, for applying a layer of a
metal which can be copper or chromium onto a substrate which
can be a polyimide substrate, by altering the surface
chemistry of the substrate using low energy irradiation and
depositing the metal by sputtering or evaporation (col. 1,
lines 21-26; col. 4, lines
11-14 and 42-45; col. 6, lines 11-13, 17 and 38-42). In one
embodiment the low energy irradiation and metal deposition
take place simultaneously and the metal deposition rate is
1-100 D/sec (col. 5, lines 48-63). Clabes teaches that the
Appeal No. 1997-3314
Application 08/266,783

5
irradiation can occur at room temperature or at elevated
substrate temperatures (col. 5, lines 18-19) and, therefore,
indicates that the simultaneous irradiation and metal
deposition can take place at a temperature as low as room
temperature.
In view of the above-discussed prior art, we conclude
that the invention recited in appellants’ claim 1 would have
been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of appellants’ invention.
Appellants argue that Sallo’s substrate naturally heats
up during the sputtering of the chromium onto the substrate
because sputtering is a high energy process (brief, page 4).
This argument is not persuasive in view of the indication by
Clabes, as discussed above, that the sputtering can take place
at room temperature. The evidence of record does not indicate
that the high energy of the chromium particles bombarding the
substrate would cause the substrate temperature to increase
from room temperature to more than appellants’ upper
temperature limit of about 60EC. Appellants have provided
mere attorney argument to that effect, and such argument
Appeal No. 1997-3314
Application 08/266,783

6
cannot take the place of evidence. See In re De Blauwe, 736
F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re
Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 315, 203 USPQ 245, 256 (CCPA 1979); In re
Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189, 197 USPQ 227, 230 (CCPA
1978); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405, 181 USPQ 641, 646
(CCPA 1974).
Appellants argue that Clabes does not suggest that a
substrate temperature of 60EC or less should be used when
sputtering chromium onto polyimides (brief, page 6). Clabes
does not specifically disclose this combination of
temperature, metal and substrate. However, as discussed
above, the reference would have fairly suggested this
combination to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Appellants argue (brief, page 6) that Clabes teaches away
from appellants’ claimed invention by stating that the
adhesion increased at low energy irradiation temperatures
above room temperature (col. 8, lines 43-45). We are not
convinced by this argument because Clabes does not teach that
the process is inoperable at room temperature but, instead,
teaches that there is a benefit to using higher temperatures.
Appeal No. 1997-3314
Application 08/266,783

7
The reference would have fairly suggested operation at room
temperature to one of ordinary skill in the art who did not
require higher adhesion than that obtained at this
temperature. Moreover, even if a temperature somewhat higher
than room temperature were used in Clabes simultaneous
irradiation/sputtering embodiment, the process would fall
within the scope of appellants’ claim 1 as long as the
substrate temperature did not exceed about 60EC.
For the above reasons we conclude, based upon the
preponderance of the evidence, that the process recited in
appellants’ claim 1 would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites that the thickness of the chromium layer
is about 5 to about 20D.
Appellants argue that Sallo requires a chromium thickness
of at least 50D (brief, page 8). Sallo’s chromium layer
thickness range of 50-500D, however, is merely a preferred
range (col. 3, lines 62-66). The teaching by Sallo that the
function of the chromium layer is to improve the bonding
Appeal No. 1997-3314
Application 08/266,783

8
between the copper layer and the polyimide substrate (col. 2,
lines 65-67) would have led one of ordinary skill in the art
to also use chromium layer thicknesses inside or outside the
preferred range, including thicknesses in the range of about 5
to about 20D, as needed to obtain suitable copper/polyimide
adhesion.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 11.
Claim 13
Appellants’ claim 13 recites that the temperature of the
polyimide substrate during the sputtering is about 0EC ± 5EC.
The examiner argues that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the sputtering
temperature such that an optimum can be obtained to achieve
maximum adhesion (answer, page 6). The examiner, however,
does not explain why Clabes’ teaching that the low energy
irradiation can occur at room temperature or higher (col. 5,
lines 18-19) would have indicated, to one of ordinary skill in
the art, that temperatures as low as about 5EC would be
suitable. Consequently, we conclude that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness of the process
Appeal No. 1997-3314
Application 08/266,783

9
recited in appellants’ claim 13.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Sallo in view of Skeist and Ho, Clabes or Belke, is
affirmed. The rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over these references is reversed.
Appeal No. 1997-3314
Application 08/266,783

10
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
CHARLES F. WARREN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
ROMULO H. DELMENDO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1997-3314
Application 08/266,783

11
BURTON A. AMERNICK
POLLOCK, VANDE SANDE & Friday
1990 M STREET, N.W., SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20036-3425
TJO:caw