Ex Parte Eom et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

13342766 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/342,766 01/03/2012
96854 7590 09/02/2016
Bell & Manning, LLC
2801 West Beltline Highway
Ste. 210
Madison, WI 53713
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Chang-Beam Eom
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.
00300-0179 1025
EXAMINER
ABRAHAM, IBRAHIME A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1756
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2016 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):
docketing@bellmanning.com
cbell@bellmanning.com
pporembski@bellmanning.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHANG-BEOM EOM and CHAD M. FOLKMAN 1
Appeal2015-003227
Application 13/342,766
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of sole independent claim 1 as
unpatentable over Zabinski et al. (US H1933 H, published Jan. 2, 2001)
("Zabinski") in view of Rijnders et al. (In situ monitoring during pulsed
laser deposition of complex oxides using reflection high energy electron
diffraction under high oxygen pressure, 70 Appl. Phys. Lett. 1888-1890
1 Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation is identified as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-003227
Application 13/342,766
( 1997)) ("Ri jnders"), Svedberg et al. (Real time measurements of surface
growth evolution in magnetron sputtered single crystal Mo/V superlattices
using in situ reflection high energy electron diffraction analysis, 431 Surface
Science 16-25 (1999)) ("Svedberg"), and Davis (US 2005/0115823 Al,
published June 2, 2005) and dependent claims 2-6 and 14-19 as
unpatentable over these references alone or in combination with additional
prior art. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
Appellants claim an apparatus for the fabrication of heterostructures
comprising a vacuum chamber 102 containing a movable substrate holder
106, a pulsed laser deposition system for depositing material on a substrate
when the holder is in a first position, a magnetron sputtering system for
depositing material when the holder is in a second position, and a RHEED
system comprising an electron gun 146, a screen 148, and a camera 150 for
recording patterns from the growth substrate in real-time when the substrate
holder is in the first pos1t10n and when the substrate holder is in the second
position without changing the position of the electron gun or the screen
(claim 1, Fig. 1 ).
A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. An apparatus for the fabrication ofheterostructures comprising:
(a) a vacuum chamber;
(b) a movable substrate holder housed within the vacuum chamber;
( c) a pulsed laser deposition system comprising a pulsed laser
deposition target housed within the vacuum chamber; and a laser; wherein
the pulsed laser deposition target and the laser are configured to deposit
material from the pulsed laser deposition target onto a growth substrate held
by the substrate holder when the substrate holder is in a first position within
the vacuum chamber;
2
Appeal2015-003227
Application 13/342,766
( d) a magnetron sputtering system comprising a magnetron sputtering
source comprising a sputtering target disposed over a magnet; wherein the
sputtering source is configured to deposit material from the sputtering target
onto a growth substrate held by the substrate holder when the substrate
holder is in a second position within the vacuum chamber; and
( e) a RHEED system comprising: an electron gun; a RHEED screen;
and a camera; wherein the electron gun, the RHEED screen and the camera
are configured to record RHEED patterns from the growth substrate in real-
time when the substrate holder is in the first position and when the substrate
holder is in the second position, without changing the position of the
electron gun or the RHEED screen.
Appellants present arguments specifically directed to independent
claim 1 only (App. Br. 5-9). Therefore, the dependent claims will stand or
fall with claim 1.
We sustain the Examiner's rejections for the reasons well stated in the
Final Action and Answer. The following comments are added for emphasis.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to provide
the apparatus of Zabinski with a RHEED system for Zabinski's pulsed laser
deposition system and magnetron sputtering system in view of Rijnders and
Svedberg (Final Action 5) and to provide Zabinski' s movable substrate
holder with the capability of moving 180° in view of Davis (id. at 6) thereby
resulting in an apparatus satisfying the claim 1 requirement of a RHEED
system configured to record in real-time when the substrate holder is in first
as well as second positions without changing the position of the RHEED
electron gun or screen.
Appellants argue that Zabinski' s apparatus must be capable of
sequential as well as simultaneous depositions from its magnetron sputtering
and pulsed laser deposition (PLD) systems (App. Br. 7-9) and that the
Examiner's proposed modifications would require "eliminating the
3
Appeal2015-003227
Application 13/342,766
simultaneous mode of operation ... thereby[] rendering the apparatus
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose" (id. at 7-8).
Appellants' argument is unpersuasive. The Examiner correctly finds
that "Zabinski explicitly teaches ... simultaneous or sequential magnetron
sputtering and pulsed laser deposition operations ... (abstract, col. 2, lines
14-19, claim 1)" (Ans. 13). Moreover, the Examiner logically reasons that
"[ o ]ne having ordinary skill in the art only desiring to form layered coating
would not have been deterred from modifying [Zabinski's] apparatus ... for
operating [only] in the sequential deposition mode" (id. at 14 ). Appellants
do not address, and therefore do not show error in, this finding and reasoning
even though a Reply Brief has been filed (see Reply Br. 2--4).
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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
4