Ex Parte FUKUHARA et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 8, 201512768317 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121768,317 04/27/2010 22919 7590 12/10/2015 GLOBAL IP COUNSELORS, LLP David Tarnoff 1233 20TH STREET, NW, SUITE 700 Suite 700 WASHINGTON, DC 20036-2680 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kenji FUKUHARA 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. MD-US100250 5378 EXAMINER STARK, JARRETT J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2823 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/10/2015 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): mailpto@giplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KENJI FUKUHARA, SEIJI SHIMIZU, and KOUJI YAMAMOTO Appeal2014-000859 Application 12/768,317 Technology Center 2800 Before TERRY J. OWENS, MARK NAGUMO, and N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1---6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). The Invention The Appellants claim a laser machining method and apparatus. Claims 1 and 6 are illustrative: 1. A laser machining method for directing laser light along a scribe-scheduled line on a surface of a brittle material substrate and forming a scribe groove, the laser machining method comprising: directing pulse laser light onto a surface of a brittle material substrate; and Appeal2014-000859 Application 12/768,317 Sercel scanning the pulse laser light along a scribe-scheduled line, the laser intensity of the pulse laser light being 1.0 x 108 W/cm2 or greater and 1.0 x 1010 W/cm2 or less, the value obtained by multiplying the amount of heat input measured in J/cm2 by the linear expansion coefficient measured in 10-7/K of the brittle material being in a range of 3 000 or greater and 100000 or less, and the number of pulses within a square circumscribing the condensed light diameter of the pulse laser light being two or greater. 6. A laser machining apparatus for directing laser light along a scribe-scheduled line on a surface of a brittle material substrate and forming a scribe groove, the laser machining apparatus comprising: a laser irradiation mechanism having a laser oscillator to transmit pulse laser light and a light-condensing optical mechanism to condense and to direct the transmitted pulse laser light; and a movement mechanism to move the laser irradiation mechanism relative to the surface of the brittle material substrate along the scribe-scheduled line, the laser intensity of the pulse laser light being 1.0 x 108 W/cm2 or greater and 1.0 x 1010 W/cm2 or less, the value obtained by multiplying the amount of heat input (J/cm2) by the linear expansion coefficient (10-7/K) of the brittle material being in a range of 3000 or greater and 100000 or less, and the number of pulses within a square circumscribing the condensed light diameter of the pulse laser light being two or greater. The Reference US 2008/0242056 Al 2 Oct. 2, 2008 Appeal2014-000859 Application 12/768,317 The Rejection Claims 1---6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sercel. OPINION We affirm the rejection. The Appellants do not separately argue the dependent claims (App. Br. 13). We therefore limit our discussion to the independent claims, i.e., claims 1 and 6. Claims 2-5, which depend from claim 1, stand or fall with that claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2011). Claim 1 Sercel discloses "a system and method for forming a variable astigmatic focal beam spot using solid-state lasers with an anamorphic beam delivery system to scribe semiconductor wafers" (i-f 2). Sercel teaches that using conventional techniques, "brittle substrates, such as GaP and GaAs, also show low productivity due to excessive edge chipping by the mechanical scribe and break and the saw dicing processes" (i-f 4 ). 1 Sercel uses UV solid-state lasers with short wavelength and pulse duration to "create extremely high irradiance, e.g., over 109 W/cm2, resulting in instantaneous vaporization by photonic bombardment" (i-fi-f 12, 34 ). Sercel teaches that an important characteristic of a focused laser beam is "optimum laser intensity (usually expressed by the laser energy density J/cm2) for a target material" (i-f 14) and that "[t]he overflow of laser energy density can 1 The Appellants state that by using their method, "defects and cracking in the machined end surface of the brittle material substrate are minimized, and a high end surface strength can be preserved" (Spec. i-f l 0) and that "a high post-machining end-surface strength can be preserved, even in cases in which abrasion machining is performed by pulse laser light on a glass substrate or another brittle material substrate" (Spec. i120). 3 Appeal2014-000859 Application 12/768,317 result in detrimental thermal damage to the target, and the lack of laser energy density can cause improper ablation or other undesired results" (if 53). The Appellants assert that in Sercel's example wherein a sapphire substrate is scribed (iii! 56-57), the heat input is below that required by the Appellants' claims (App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 3). Sercel is not limited to its examples. See In re Fracalossi, 681 F .2d 792, 794 n.1(CCPA1982); In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651(CCPA1972). Instead, all disclosures therein must be evaluated for what they would have fairly suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965 (CCPA 1966). Sercel indicates that the substrate need not be sapphire but, rather, can be other brittle semiconductor wafer materials such as GaP and GaAs (iii! 4, 65). Sercel (iii! 14, 53), like the Appellant, optimizes the laser energy density (heat input, J/cm2) for the target material to minimize the target's chipping or cracking such that its high end-surface strength is maintained, and Sercel uses a laser irradiance (over 109 W/cm2) (if 12) which can be within the Appellants' recited range (108 - 1010 W/cm2). Hence, the record indicates that routine optimization of Sercel's method for scribing the same brittle material scribed using the Appellants' method would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to essentially the same heat input used by the Appellants. Claim 6 Regarding claim 6 the Appellants merely assert that "[ c ]laim 6 is a device claim which requires similar elements" as claim 1 (App. Br. 12). 4 Appeal2014-000859 Application 12/768,317 Sercel' s apparatus is capable of scribing using a laser intensity (over 109 W/cm2) (i-f 12) within the Appellants' recited range (108 - 1010 W/cm2). The recited brittle material is not a component which imparts structure to the apparatus. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). For the above reasons we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection. DECISION/ORDER The rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sercel is affirmed. It is ordered that the Examiner's decision 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 sl 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation