Ex parte EBE et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 28, 2001

08384597 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 28, 2001)

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written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 31
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte AKINORI EBE, SATOSHI NISHIYAMA,
KIYOSHI OGATA, and YASUO SUZUKI
____________
Appeal No. 1998-1628
Application No. 08/384,597
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, GROSS, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent
Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 5 through 7, which are all of the claims
pending in this application.
Appellants' invention relates to an apparatus for forming
a film on a substrate. The apparatus includes an ion source
and an evaporation source, which together operate to produce
on the substrate a mixed layer with a ratio M/N ranging from
10 to 1000, where M is the number of evaporation material
Appeal No. 1998-1628
Application No. 08/384,597
2
atoms reaching the substrate surface per unit time and per
unit area and N is the number of ions reaching the substrate
surface per unit time and per unit area. The apparatus
further includes means for forming a film of the evaporation
material on top of the mixed layer. Due to the mixed layer,
the film adheres well to the substrate. Claim 5 is
illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as
follows:
5. A film forming apparatus comprising:
means for continuously moving an objective substrate
through a vacuum chamber;
an evaporation source disposed at a first location
for vacuum evaporation of a material onto a substrate surface
as the objective substrate is moved through the vacuum chamber
in a first direction;
an ion source disposed at a second location for
radiating ions having ion energy in a range of 500eV to 8KeV
toward the substrate surface as the objective substrate is
moved through the vacuum chamber in the first direction, said
ion source being disposed so that the radiating ions form a
mixed layer with the ratio (M/N) of the number M of
evaporation material atoms reaching the substrate surface per
unit time and per unit area to the number N of ions reaching
the substrate surface per unit time and per unit area being in
a range from 10 to 1000;
the ion and evaporation sources operating to produce
a mixed layer on the substrate surface as the substrate is
moved through the vacuum chamber in the first direction; and
Appeal No. 1998-1628
Application No. 08/384,597
Since both the examiner and appellant refer to this reference as1
Nisshin Steel, we too shall use the name Nisshin Steel for this reference. In
addition, our understanding of this reference is based upon a translation
provided by the Translations Branch of the Patent and Trademark Office, a copy
of which is attached to this decision.
3
the evaporation source operating to produce a film
on the mixed layer on the substrate surface as the objective
substrate is again moved through the vacuum chamber in the
first direction or a second direction opposite to the first
direction.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Suzuki et al. (Suzuki) 4,683,149 Jul. 28,
1987
Ando et al. (Ando) 4,828,870 May 09,
1989
Ogata et al. (Ogata) 5,250,327 Oct. 05,
1993
Fukui et al. JP 02-247371 Oct. 03,1
1990
(Nisshin Steel)
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Ogata and Ando.
Claims 5 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Nisshin Steel in view of Suzuki,
Ogata, and Ando.
Reference is made to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 22,
mailed July 24, 1996) and the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 28,
Appeal No. 1998-1628
Application No. 08/384,597
4
mailed April 11, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellants' Brief (Paper
No. 27, filed January 16, 1997) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 29,
filed June 4, 1997) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 5
through 7.
The examiner first rejects claim 5 over Suzuki, Ando, and
Ogata. Suzuki discloses an apparatus for forming a film on a
substrate which includes an evaporation source and an ion
source. Suzuki states (column 3, lines 37-41) that ions from
the ion source mix with the deposition layer at the interface
between the substrate and the deposition layer, forming a
continuously varying composition or mixed layer. Suzuki
discloses (column 1, lines 52-53, column 2, lines 13-14, and
column 3, lines 32-34) that the ion beam energy ranges from
10KeV to 100KeV, with specific examples of 30KeV and 40KeV
(see column 4, lines 57-58, column 5, lines 16-18 and 55-56,
Appeal No. 1998-1628
Application No. 08/384,597
5
and column 6, lines 43-44), which fall outside the claimed
range of 500eV to 8KeV. Further, Suzuki makes no mention of
the ratio of evaporation atoms to ions reaching the substrate.
The examiner maintains (Final Rejection, pages 2-3, and
Answer, pages 4-6) that both the claimed ion energy of 500eV
to 8KeV and the claimed ratio of 10 to 1000 for evaporation
atoms to ions are merely statements of intended use of the
apparatus, and, therefore, are not given patentable weight.
Appellants, on the other hand, assert (Brief, page 8) that the
claimed voltage range is not an intended use, but rather
"quantifies a structural characteristic of an element of the
apparatus, i.e., the ion source." Similarly, appellants
assert (Brief, page 10) that the claimed ratio of evaporation
atoms to ions is not an intended use, but rather, "constitutes
structural definition of the ion and evaporation sources as
elements of the apparatus."
We agree with appellants. Both the voltage range and the
ratio are positively recited limitations in the claims and at
least partially define the positioning and amounts of the ion
and evaporation sources. Thus, the two ranges amount to
structural limitations which cannot be ignored.
Appeal No. 1998-1628
Application No. 08/384,597
6
Regarding the claimed energy range, as indicated above,
Suzuki discloses an energy range greater than that claimed by
appellants. The examiner never acknowledges this difference,
but rather states (Final Rejection, page 2) that the apparatus
of Suzuki "has the inherent capability of operation." Thus,
Suzuki fails to suggest the claimed energy range.
Ogata discloses (column 6, lines 15-23) that the energy
for ions should be no higher than 40KeV for reducing defects
in a ceramic material being formed on a metal substrate.
However, there is no suggestion in Ogata to use an energy as
low as 0.5 to 8KeV, as claimed. Ando discloses that energy
for irradiating the surface of a substrate with ions should
range from 0.1KeV to 1KeV, which overlaps the claimed range,
to improve the crystalline properties of aluminum vapor
deposited thereon. However, Ando radiates the ions to
strengthen the vapor deposited aluminum layer, not to form an
intermediate layer between the substrate and the vapor
deposited layer. Therefore, we find no motivation for
applying the recited energy range to Suzuki's formation of an
intermediate mixing layer.
Appeal No. 1998-1628
Application No. 08/384,597
7
The examiner further asserts (Final Rejection, page 3)
that the ratio M/N would have been obvious because "it is a
variable of art recognized importance which is subject to
routine experimentation and optimization and discovery of an
optimum value for a known apparatus is obvious." However,
optimization is only obvious for result effective variables,
and the examiner has provided no evidence that the ratio of
M/N is such a result effective variable. See In re Boesch,
617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
The examiner contends (Final Rejection, page 3) that
Ogata suggests adjusting the ratio according to the materials
deposited. However, Ogata provides no guidance as to how one
would select a ratio of evaporation atoms to ions. Further,
the examiner (Final Rejection, page 3-4) points to the range
of 3 to 200 in Ando, which overlaps the claimed range, for the
ratio of evaporation atoms to ions and asserts that it would
have been obvious to set the ratio in Suzuki to within such a
range "because better quality film is produced." However, as
with the energy range, since Ando is directed to strengthening
a deposited aluminum layer, we find no motivation for applying
Ando's disclosed range to Suzuki's formation of an
Appeal No. 1998-1628
Application No. 08/384,597
8
intermediate mixing layer. Consequently, we cannot sustain
the rejection of claim 5 over Suzuki, Ogata, and Ando.
The examiner additionally applies Nisshin Steel, Suzuki,
Ogata, and Ando in combination against claims 5 through 7.
Nisshin Steel uses an ion beam energy of 10eV, which is
significantly lower than the claimed energy range (see
translation, page 7). Further, like Suzuki, Nisshin Steel
fails to disclose the ratio of evaporation atoms to ions. The
examiner employs the same reasoning for modifying Nisshin
Steel that we above found deficient with regard to modifying
Suzuki. We find the reasoning equally lacking for modifying
Nisshin Steel. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection
of claims 5 through 7 over Nisshin Steel, Suzuki, Ogata, and
Ando.
Appeal No. 1998-1628
Application No. 08/384,597
9
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 5 through 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
APG/gjh
Appeal No. 1998-1628
Application No. 08/384,597
10
FINNEGAN HENDERSON FARABOW
GARRETT AND DUNNER
1300 I STREET NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20005-3315