13912797 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 2017)

Ex Parte Hustad et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 16, 2017

13912797 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 2017)

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. 13/912,797 06/07/2013 Phillip Dene Hustad DN74873 (DOW0015US) 2217 14268 7590 11/20/2017 The Dow Chemical Company/Cantor Colburn LLP 20 Church Street 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103-3207 EXAMINER PHAM, THOMAS T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1713 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/20/2017 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): ffuimpc@dow.com u sptopatentmail @ C antorColburn .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PHILLIP DENE HUSTAD, FRANK STEVEN BATES, MARC ANDREW HILLMYER, and JUSTIN GLENN KENNEMUR Appeal 2017-004172 Application 13/912,797 Technology Center 1700 Before TERRY J. OWENS, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and JANE E. INGLESE, 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’ rejection of claims 1—10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellants claim a block copolymer. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A block copolymer comprising: 40 to 60 volume percent of a first block derived from a cyclo-alkyl vinyl monomer, a hydrogenated vinyl aromatic polymer or a hydrogenated vinyl pyridine polymer; and 40 to 60 volume percent of a second block derived from an acrylate monomer, where the block copolymer comprises Appeal 2017-004172 Application 13/912,797 cylindrical and/or lamellar domains and has an interdomain spacing of less than or equal to about 30 nanometers. Bromberg The References US 2008/0003288 A1 Jan. 3, 2008 Takahashi US 2009/0253867 A1 Oct. 8, 2009 Tanaka US 2023/0228262 A1 Sep. 13,2012 Senzaki US 2013/0210231 A1 Aug. 15, 2013 The claims The Rejections stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § (filed Feb. 7, 2013) 103 as follows: claims 1—5 and 8—10 over Senzaki in view of Tanaka and Takahashi, and claims 6 and 7 over Senzaki in view of Tanaka, Takahashi and Bromberg. OPINION We reverse the rejections. We need address only the sole independent claim, i.e., claim 1.1 That claim requires a block copolymer comprising cylindrical and/or lamellar domains and having an interdomain spacing of less than or equal to about 30 nanometers. Senzaki discloses a thin film having holes therein containing a phase- separated block copolymer which can be a copolymer of vinylcyclohexane and a (meth)acrylate ester, the hole diameter being 0.8 to 3.1 times a period of the block copolymer (| 15, 26—28).2 In Example 1 the period is 36.5 nm, so for hole diameters ranging from 60.7 to 114 nm the hole diameter/period 1 The Examiner does not rely upon Bromberg for any disclosure that remedies the deficiency in the references applied to the independent claim as to the limitations in that claim. 2 The period of the block copolymer is the sum of the lengths of the mutually incompatible, block copolymer separated phases (124), and corresponds to the Appellants’ interdomain spacing (Spec. Tflf 15, 16; Br. 4—5). 2 Appeal 2017-004172 Application 13/912,797 ratio is 1.65 to 3.1 (H 99, 102), in Example 2 the period is 73.5 nm, so for hole diameters ranging from 60.7 to 156 nm the hole diameter/period ratio is 0.83 to 2.12, and in Example 6 the period is 34.7 nm, so for hole diameters ranging from 60.7 to 114 nm the hole diameter/period ratio is 1.75 to 3.29 (11113,114). Tanaka discloses that “phase separation of a block copolymer is the microphase separation in which separated phases are formed at a pitch of about several nanometers to 100 nanometers” (121). The Examiner concludes (Ans. 4): [I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to select a block copolymer so that diameter of the contact hole is 0.8-3.1 times the interdomain spacing of the block copolymer. Based on the diameter of the contact holes of 60.7 nm, this is equivalent to the block copolymer having an interdomain spacing of 19.6-75.9 nm. This range overlaps the range of less than or equal to about 30 nm in claim 1. This agrees with Tanaka, which teaches that the phase separation may be formed at an interdomain spacing of about several nanometer[s] to 100 nanometers ([0021]). Senzaki does not disclose that every hole diameter/block copolymer period ratio between 0.8 and 3.1 is achievable but, rather, as indicated by Examples 1, 2 and 6 as set forth above, discloses that for Senzaki’s hole diameters and block copolymer periods (the disclosed values of which are greater than 30 nm), the hole diameter/block copolymer period ratio is 0.8 to 3.1. The Examiner concludes that “it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to find the optimum interdomain spacing as recited in claim 1 since it has been held 3 Appeal 2017-004172 Application 13/912,797 that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233” (Ans. 4). The Examiner does not establish that Senzaki discloses general conditions which, when optimized, would provide a block copolymer having a period less than or equal to about 30 nm, or that Tanaka would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve such a period in Senzaki’s block copolymer. Thus, the Examiner has not set forth a factual basis which is sufficient to support a conclusion of obviousness of the Appellants’ claimed block copolymer. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior art”). Accordingly, we reverse the rejections. DECISION/ORDER The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1—5 and 8—10 over Senzaki in view of Tanaka and Takahashi, and claims 6 and 7 over Senzaki in view of Tanaka, Takahashi and Bromberg are reversed. It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED 4