Ex Parte Kadlec et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 1, 2016

13032922 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/032,922 02/23/2011 Stanislav Kadlec
86378 7590 09/06/2016
Pearne & Gordon LLP
1801East9th Street
Suite 1200
Cleveland, OH 44114-3108
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.
TSW-46490US 1 7865
EXAMINER
WANGA, TIMON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1756
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/06/2016 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):
patdocket@pearne.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STANISLAV KADLEC and JURGEN WEICHART 1
Appeal2015-001743
Application 13/032,922
Technology Center 1700
Before PETERF. KRATZ, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 2
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Oerlikon Advanced
Tecnologies AG. Appeal Br. 3.
2 In our opinion below, we reference the Specification filed February 12,
2011 (Spec.), Final Office Action mailed October 1, 2013 (Final), the
Appeal Brief filed May 19, 2014 (Appeal Br.), the Examiner's Answer
mailed September 26, 2014 (Ans.), and the Reply Brief filed November 26,
2014 (Reply Br.).
Appeal2015-001743
Application 13/032,922
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner's decision
to reject claims 1 and 7-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Tomer3
in view ofLynn4 and Juliano. 5 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The claims are directed to a target for a physical vapor deposition
system. See, e.g., claim 1.
The target has inner and outer concentric rings. Spec. i-f 58. Figure
I la shows the target reference plane or base 205 with a first ring at 200 and
a second ring at 210. Figure I la is reproduced below:
5l)
. -'50 .. 200
. -too
-200
~250
220
I
/
I
1 [){}
210 I 240
I
I
Figure 11 a is a cross-sectional view of the target
3 US 5,126,029, issued Jun. 30, 1992.
4 US 2003/0178301 Al, pub. Sep. 25, 2003.
5 US 7,569,123 Bl, issued Aug. 4, 2009.
2
Appeal2015-001743
Application 13/032,922
The sides of the concentric rings 200 and 210 slope so they define
obtuse angles with the base of the target. Spec. i-f 58. Figure I lb shows the
inner and outer concentric rings with the obtuse angles shown at C, D, E,
and F. Figure 11 b is reproduced below:
200 2!0
Figure 11 b is a cross-sectional view of the right half of the target
In Figures I la and I lb, the top line (at 205 in Fig. I la) is the initial
cross-section of the target. Spec. i-f 58. During sputtering the target erodes.
Id. The lines below the top line show how erosion progresses. Id.
Claim 1 is further illustrative:
1. A target for a physical vapor deposition system, the
target comprising:
a base (205) with a center and a rim (240);
an inner ring (200) extending from the base (205) with an
inner side (201) and an outer side (202), the inner side (201) of
the inner ring (200) and the base (205) defining a first obtuse
angle ( C) opening toward the center of the base, the outer side
(202) of the inner ring (200) and the base (205) defining a
second obtuse angle (D) opening toward the rim (204) of the
base (205); and
an outer ring (210) extending from the base (205) with an
inner side (211) and an outer side (212), the inner side (211) of
3
Appeal2015-001743
Application 13/032,922
the outer ring (210) and the base (205) defining a third obtuse
angle (E) opening toward the center of the base (205), the outer
side (212) of the outer ring (210) and the base (205) defining a
fourth obtuse angle (F) opening toward the rim (240) of the
base (205),
wherein the inner ring (200) and the outer ring (210) are
concentric,
wherein the fourth angle (F) is greater than the second
angle (D), and
wherein the second angle (D) is greater than the third
angle (E).
Claims Appendix, Appeal Br. 18.
OPINION
Both the Examiner and Appellants provide a thorough and thoughtful
discussion of the prior art with citations to the references that support their
respective positions. Having considered the evidence of record cited by both
the Examiner and Appellants, we determine that a preponderance of the
evidence supports Appellants' argument as set forth in their briefs.
Although Lynn discloses countering the problem of non-uniform
target erosion by including an in-relief upper surface on the target as shown
in, for instance, Figure 8 (at 801), Lynn does not disclose, and nor do either
Tomer or Juliano, altering the shape of the in-relief upper surface so that the
in-relief upper surface has the different angles Appellants require in their
claims. Lynn may observe how the target erodes to determine where to
place the extra material that results in the in-relief upper surface, but Lynn is
silent with respect to how the shape of the in-relief upper surface affects
erosion. Lynn merely places more material where more erosion will occur.
4
Appeal2015-001743
Application 13/032,922
There is no specific guidance in the prior art regarding the shape much less
the angles the shape will make with the base. Moreover, Tomer and Juliano
solve the erosion problem in a different way, i.e., by manipulating the
magnetron, rather than by re-shaping the target. Tomer, col. 4, 11. 8-26;
Juliano, col. 1, 11. 38-51. 6 Thus, we agree with Appellants that there is no
suggestion within the prior art cited by the Examiner that supports the
obviousness of crafting the angles as Appellants claim.
CONCLUSION
We do not sustain the Examiner's rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
6 To the extent Juliano discloses re-shaping the target, the re-shaping is
limited to forming a flared lip (Fig. 16 at 1612) along the outer edge of a
concave (hollow-shaped) target, and is not directed to raised in-relief
portions in the racetrack region as taught by Lynn. Juliano, col. 9, 11. 33-47.
5