Ex Parte Greenberg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 15, 2016

12169154 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/169,154 07/08/2008 Thomas Larson Greenberg STL3603 8768
75635 7590 12/19/2016
Hall Estill Attorneys at Law (Seagate - MKM)
100 North Broadway
Suite 2900
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
EXAMINER
BRAYTON, JOHN JOSEPH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1756
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2016 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):
mmccarthy @hallestill.com
danderson@hallestill.com
okcipdocketing @ hallestill. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS LARSON GREENBERG,
THANH THIEN HA, LARRY DOUGLAS MONROE,
SAM VI LUONG, CHINH THIEN DAO, and
HUNG TUAN NGUYEN
Appeal 2015-004689
Application 12/169,154
Technology Center 1700
Before MARKNAGUMO, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision to finally reject claims 1—3, 5, 6, 10-15, 20, 23, 24, and 26—31.
1 In this decision, we refer to the Specification filed July 8, 2008 (“Spec.”),
the Final Office Action appealed from mailed May 8, 2014 (“Final Act.”),
the Appeal Brief filed Nov. 7, 2014 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer
mailed Jan. 16, 2015 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed Mar. 16, 2015
(“Reply Br.”).
2 The real party in interest is identified by Appellants as Seagate Technology
LLC. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-004689
Application 12/169,154
Appellants argue the rejections of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Hollars3 and Walter.4 App. Br. 4—10. Each of claims 2, 3, 5,
6, 10-15, 20, 23, 24, and 26—31 depends directly or indirectly from claim 1.
Id. at 11—15, Claims App’x. Appellants do not argue separately the
Examiner’s rejections of the dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b)
and 103(a). Id. at 10. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), and
based upon the lack of arguments directed to the subsidiary rejections,
claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 10—15, 20, 23, 24, and 26—31 will stand or fall together
with independent claim 1.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3, 5, 6, 10—15, 20,
23,24, and 26-31.
The claims are directed to an apparatus and method for sputtering a
material on a substrate comprising sputtering cathodes and an inline heater.
Claim 1 is representative (subject matter in dispute italicized):
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a path inside a vacuum chamber along which a substrate is
moved in a direction of travel;
a vacuum pump configured to evacuate the vacuum
chamber for sputtering a material on the substrate;
a first sputtering cathode on one side of the substrate inside
the vacuum chamber positioned along the path and configured to
sputter during the time that the substrate is being moved along
the path;
a second sputtering cathode on another side of the
substrate inside the vacuum chamber positioned along the path
3 Hollars et al., US 5,683,561, issued Nov. 4, 1997 (“Hollars”).
4 Walter, US 4,261,808, issued Apr. 14, 1981 (“Walter”).
2
Appeal 2015-004689
Application 12/169,154
and configured to sputter during the time that the substrate is
being moved along the path; and
an inline heater inside the vacuum chamber positioned
along the path downstream in relation to the direction of travel
of all sputtering cathodes inside the vacuum chamber, both of the
cathodes and the heater operably exposed to the evacuation for
sputtering that is produced by the vacuum pump.
Claims App’x at App. Br. 11.
OPINION
Anticipation by Hollars
The Examiner finds that Hollars discloses each element of claim 1.
Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner specifically identifies items 22D, 28, 22E,
and 24C in Figure 3 of Hollars as the vacuum chamber and items C9 and
CIO as the vacuum pump required by claim 1. Id. at 2. The Examiner finds
that the vacuum chamber of Hollars shown in Figures 3 and 12d as items
22D, 28, 22E, and 24C “is created by doors D7—D8 and D9-105 used to
isolate the instant vacuum chamber from other respective vacuum chambers
(col. 11, In. 18—32).” Id. at 3. The Examiner further identifies the first and
second sputtering cathodes as item 2222 (Figure 14) and the substrate as
items 510 and 800 in Figure 23. Id. at 2—3. The Examiner also identifies
item 22E as an inline heater. Id. at 3. Figure 3 of Hollars is shown below.
5 Fig. 12; Fig. 3 (indicated as unlabeled boxes on the lines between 24B and
22D, and between 24C and 29).
3
Appeal 2015-004689
Application 12/169,154
Figure 3 is a plan view of the sputtering apparatus of Hollars. Hollars 7:46.
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is in error
because “Hollars clearly discloses a sputtering cathode and a heater in two
different vacuum chambers.” App. Br. 6. Appellants also contend that
“Hollars’ sputtering chamber 28 is evacuated by combined operation of
pumps C9 and CIO (‘evacuation for sputtering’), and that its dwell chamber
22E is subsequently evacuated by combined operation of pumps CIO and
4
Appeal 2015-004689
Application 12/169,154
Cl 1 (‘evacuation for separation’).” Id. at 7. According to Appellants, “[t]he
skilled artisan understands that Hollars’ heater in the dwell chamber 22E is
exposed to the lower evacuation for separation, not the higher evacuation for
sputtering.” Id.
The Examiner responds that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
“vacuum chamber” encompasses the vacuum chamber identified by the
Examiner in Hollars.
Applicant fails to provide any specific definition of a vacuum
chamber. Therefore the term “vacuum chamber” must be given
its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
MPEP 2173. Reading the specification and relevant prior art the
Examiner takes the position that a vacuum chamber is an area
capable of obtaining a vacuum atmosphere.
Hollars provides a number of areas that operate under
vacuum. Figure 3, annotated below discloses the area interpreted
as the vacuum chamber in the current rejection. This vacuum
chamber is represented by 22D, 28, 22E and 24C and is capable
of obtaining a vacuum independent of the rest of the system by
closing doors D7, D8, D9, and DIO and pumping with
mechanical pumps MP2/BL2 and cryogenic pumps (C9, CIO,
Cll). Sputtering is performed in area 28. Heaters are present in
area 22E.
Ans. 2—3 (citing Hollars 11:18—33, 19:61—20:5, 42:47-43:10). Based on
these findings, the Examiner concludes that “[n]o skilled artisan reading
Hollars would refer to chamber[s] 12—30 as individual vacuum chambers.
As such Hollars teaches sputtering cathodes and a heater inside the same
vacuum chamber.” Id. at 5. The Examiner further finds “there is nothing
that separates the evacuation for sputtering from the heater located in 22E.”
Id. at 6. Regarding the argument that different pressure levels exist between
chambers 28 and 22E, the Examiner finds “[tjhere is no requirement of
5
Appeal 2015-004689
Application 12/169,154
‘high’ or ‘low’ or equivalent pressures between heater and sputtering
cathode in the claim.” Id. at 7.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue that “Hollars discloses the
sputtering chamber 28 is evacuated by combined operation of pumps C9 and
CIO (evacuation for sputtering), and that the dwell chamber 22E is
simultaneously evacuated by combined operation of pumps CIO and Cl 1
(‘evacuation for separation’).” Reply Br. 4 (emphasis omitted). According
to Appellants, the evacuation for sputtering is higher than the evacuation for
separation. Id. at 5. Appellants further contend that “Hollars’ one explicit
use of the term vacuum chamber is in reference to the sputter chamber 28 in
this dispute.” Id. at 6 (quoting Hollars 25:50-56, 44:20-21). The quoted
portions of Hollars describes door 120 for accessing sputtering chamber 20
for maintenance purposes and also software for faults including open
protective covers on sputtering chambers 20, 26, and 28.
Appellants have not persuaded us of a reversible error in the
Examiner’s finding that the claimed vacuum chamber is met by the portion
of Hollars’ high throughput sputtering apparatus identified by the Examiner
as 22D, 28, 22E, and 24C. The Examiner’s findings that chambers 22D, 28,
22E, and 24C comprise the vacuum chamber required by claim 1 and also
that sputtering occurs in 28 and inline heaters are present in 22E are all
supported by the preponderance of the evidence in this record. We agree
with the Examiner that the term “vacuum chamber” does require a particular
negative pressure for its vacuum atmosphere or equivalent pressure as
between the sputtering area and the heating area as Appellants argue.
Appellants do not direct us to any evidence to support a different
6
Appeal 2015-004689
Application 12/169,154
interpretation for the vacuum chamber required by claim 1. Accordingly, we
affirm the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Hollars.
Anticipation by Walter
With reference to Figure 1 of Walter, the Examiner finds that Walter
discloses the vacuum chamber (10), first sputtering cathode (17a), second
sputtering cathode (17b), and inline heater (19) required by claim 1. Final
Act. 6. The Examiner also finds that the vacuum chamber (10) is evacuated
for sputtering a material on a substrate by a vacuum pump. Id. (citing
Walter, Fig. 2, items 33, 34, 3:55, 5:20—29). The Examiner further finds that
“heater 19 is downstream because after the substrate passes through the
sputtering targets it passes through the heater 19 shown by figure 1.” Id.
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
anticipated by Walter is in error because “Walter clearly discloses its heater
is upstream of the cathodes, contrary to the language of rejected claim 1.”
App. Br. 8. Regarding Walter’s disclosure of additional heaters downstream
of the cathodes, Appellants argue that “Walter intentionally constructs a
partition 24 to maintain a different evacuation pressure in its upper chamber
25 (for purposes of sputtering) in comparison to the pressure in its lower
chamber 26 (for purposes of cleaning and heating).” Id. at 9.
Appellants argue further that “Walter intentionally constructs a
partition 24 to maintain a different evacuation pressure in its upper chamber
25 (for purposes of sputtering) in comparison to the pressure in its lower
chamber 26 (for purposes of cleaning and heating)” and that “[t]he Office’s
annotated version of FIG. 1 explicitly shows Walter’s heater is not within
the evacuation pressure environment of chamber 25.” Reply Br. 8 (emphasis
omitted).
7
Appeal 2015-004689
Application 12/169,154
Appellants have not persuaded us of a reversible error in the
Examiner’s finding that Walter discloses an inline heater 19 inside the
vacuum chamber 10 that is positioned along the path downstream in relation
to the direction of travel of all sputtering cathodes inside the vacuum
chamber as required by claim 1. The Examiner’s annotated Figure 1 of
Walter is shown below.
Figure 1 “is a vertical cross section through a vacuum coating
apparatus providing a side view of the wheels and the straight sections of a
flexible endless conveyor means.” Walter 4:44-47.
8
Appeal 2015-004689
Application 12/169,154
Appellants do not dispute that vacuum chamber 10 is under a vacuum
atmosphere, rather, Appellants contend that the pressure is “different”
between the area of the cathodes and the area of the heaters. Reply Br. 8.
As discussed above, the term “vacuum chamber” does not require a
particular negative pressure for its vacuum atmosphere or equivalent
pressure as between the sputtering area and the heating area as Appellants
argue. Appellants do not direct us to any evidence to support a different
interpretation for the vacuum chamber required by claim 1. Accordingly, we
affirm the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Walter.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejections.
DECISION
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 1—3, 5, 6, 10-15, 20, 23, 24, and 26—31.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9