Ex Parte Inagawa

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 13, 2011

11184679 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 13, 2011)

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.
11/184,679 07/19/2005 Makoto Inagawa AM-10173 2909
60300 7590 10/14/2011
LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES GUENZER
ATTN: APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.
2211 PARK BOULEVARD
P.O. BOX 60729
PALO ALTO, CA 94306
EXAMINER
BERMAN, JASON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1724
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/14/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte MAKOTO INAGAWA
________________

Appeal 2010-008376
Application 11/184,679
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, TERRY J. OWENS, and LINDA M.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellant appeals from the Examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-6, 11-15, and 21 as unpatentable
over Ocker (US 5,529,627, issued Jun. 25, 1996) in view of Arnold (US 4,824,545,
issued Apr. 25, 1989) and Moslehi (US 5,876,573, issued Mar. 02, 1999) and of
claims 7-10, 16, and 17 as unpatentable over these references in various
combinations with other prior art of record. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6.
Appeal 2010-008376
Application 11/184,679
 
 
2
 
We REVERSE.
Appellant claims a sputtering system 50 comprising a main (i.e., sputtering)
chamber 14, a magnetron chamber 32, and a bypass conduit 51, 52 connecting the
magnetron chamber and the main chamber and including a bypass valve 54 (claims
1, 13; Fig. 2).
Representative claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A sputtering system, comprising:

a main chamber for holding a substrate to be sputter coated and being
vacuum sealable on a side opposite the substrate with a sputtering target and
connectable to a high-vacuum pump capable of pumping the main chamber to a
pressure below 1 milliTorr;

a magnetron chamber configured to include a scanning magnetron and to be
vacuum sealable to the target;

a roughing valve connected between a vacuum roughing line and the
magnetron chamber, wherein a flow path between the vacuum roughing line and
the magnetron chamber passing through the roughing valve does not pass through
the high-vacuum pump or the main chamber; and

a bypass conduit connecting the magnetron chamber and the main chamber
and including a bypass valve, whereby a selection of a state of the bypass valve
determines whether a pressure differential may exist between the main chamber
and the magnetron chamber or whether pressures in the main chamber and the
magnetron chamber are equalized.

The Examiner concedes that the bypass conduit connecting the magnetron
chamber and the main (i.e. sputtering) chamber of Ocker's sputtering system does
not include a bypass valve as required by independent claim 1 (Ans. 4) but
concludes that it would have been obvious to provide the bypass conduit with a
Appeal 2010-008376
Application 11/184,679
 
 
3
 
valve in view of Arnold "because a bypass valve effectively equalizes pressures
between adjacent chambers" (id. at 5).
The appeal record does not provide a prima facie case for the Examiner's
obviousness conclusion.
As correctly argued by Appellant, the Examiner's justification for combining
Ocker and Arnold (i.e., "because a bypass valve effectively equalizes pressures
between adjacent chambers" (id.)) is improper since the bypass conduit of Ocker
already equalizes pressures between the magnetron and sputtering chambers (App.
Br. para. bridging 7-8; Reply Br. para. bridging 1-2). Moreover, we agree with
Appellant that "[p]lacing a valve in the bypass conduit allows the chamber
pressures to be unequal when the valve is closed" (Reply Br. para. bridging 1-2)
which is "a result taught against by Ocker" (id.). Finally, Appellant is persuasive
in arguing that Arnold's reasons for providing the bypass conduit of coating and
entry/exit chambers with a valve are not applicable to the bypass conduit of
Ocker's magnetron and sputtering chambers (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2).
For the above stated reasons, we cannot sustain the Examiner's § 103
rejections of the appealed claims.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

ssl