Ex Parte Kwak et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 28, 201713301718 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/301,718 11/21/2011 Byung Sung Kwak 017499-0400909 8629 71728 7590 03/02/2017 APPLIED MATERIALS C/O PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP P .0 . BOX 10500 MCLEAN, VA 22120 EXAMINER ABRAHAM, IBRAHIME A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1756 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2017 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): docket_ip@pillsburylaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BYUNG SUNG KWAK, STEFAN BANGERT, MICHAEL KOENIG, FLORIAN RIES, and RALF HOFMANN Appeal 2016-001279 Application 13/301,718 Technology Center 1700 Before PETER F. KRATZ, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and ELIZABETH M. ROESEL, Administrative Patent Judges. ROESEL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 6—18, 22, 23, and 25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).2 1 Applied Materials, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. 2 In our opinion below, we reference the Specification filed November 21, 2011 (Spec.), the Final Office Action mailed December 22, 2014 (Final Action), the Appeal Brief filed May 26, 2015 (App. Br.), the Examiner’s Answer mailed September 8, 2015 (Ans.), and the Reply Brief filed November 9, 2015 (Reply Br.). Appeal 2016-001279 Application 13/301,718 We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claimed Invention The claimed subject matter relates to deposition system for alkali and alkaline earth metals, where the system includes a vacuum chamber, a metal sputter target, and a removable cover for the target material. App. Br. 10 (claim 1). According to the Specification, such systems are useful for manufacturing devices such as thin film batteries and electrochromic windows. Spec. 13. The Specification discloses an air tight, purgeable cover to protect ambient sensitive sputter targets prior to installation into a deposition chamber under an inert atmosphere. Id. 14. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim and is reproduced below from Appellants’ Claims Appendix with bold added to emphasize limitations that are the focus of Appellants’ arguments: 1. A deposition system for alkali and alkaline earth metals comprising: a vacuum chamber; a metal sputter target within said vacuum chamber, said target comprising target material attached at a back surface to a backing plate including cooling channels; a removable cover configured to fit over said target material and attach to said backing plate, said cover and said metal sputter target being configured to form a sealed volume there between, wherein a front surface of said target material is within said sealed volume, wherein said cover is completely within said vacuum chamber, wherein said cover includes a handle for removal and replacement of said cover within said vacuum chamber, and wherein said cover has an interior surface facing said front surface of said target 2 Appeal 2016-001279 Application 13/301,718 material and an exterior surface on which said handle is mounted; a substrate holder within said vacuum chamber, said holder being configured to hold a substrate facing and parallel to said metal sputter target; and multiple power sources configured to apply energy to a plasma ignited between said substrate and said target material, said multiple power sources including a first power source for controlling target material self bias, and a second power source for controlling ion density in said plasma; wherein said target material is an alkali metal or alkaline earth metal. App. Br. 10. References Demaray et al. ’822”) US 5,487,822 Jan. 30, 1996 (“Demaray Shulz US 5,830,336 Nov. 3, 1998 Davenport US 6,103,069 Aug. 15,2000 Demaray et al. US 2002/0033330 Al Mar. 21, 2002 (“Demaray ’330”) Johnson US 2003/0042131 Al Mar. 6, 2003 Stowell US 2004/0026235 Al Feb. 12, 2004 Miyazaki et al. JP 2003-089870 A Mar. 28, 2003 (“Miyazaki”)3 Rejections The Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): 1. Claims 1—4, 12—18, 22, 23, and 25 as unpatentable over Johnson, Schulz, Miyazaki, and Demaray ’822. Final Action 3—9. 3 We cite to a Derwent Abstract and English machine translation of Miyazaki, both of which were made of record July 2, 2014. 3 Appeal 2016-001279 Application 13/301,718 2. Claims 6 and 7 as unpatentable over Johnson, Schulz, Miyazaki, Demaray ’822, and Davenport. Id. at 9-11. 3. Claims 8 and 9 as unpatentable over Johnson, Schulz, Miyazaki, Demaray ’822, and Demaray ’330. Id. at 11—12. 4. Claims 10 and 11 as unpatentable over Johnson, Schulz, Miyazaki, Demaray ’822, and Stowell. Id. at 9-11. ANALYSIS Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of dependent claims 2-4, 7, 9-18, 22, 23, and 25. App. Br. 5—8. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), claims 2—4, 7, 9-18, 22, 23, and 25 will stand or fall together with claim 1. Upon consideration of the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellants’ contentions, we are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error, and we find that a preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of Appellants’ claims is unpatentable over the applied prior art. We sustain the rejections of the appealed claims based on the Examiner’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and rebuttals to Appellants’ arguments, as expressed in the Final Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Claim 1 The Examiner finds that Johnson teaches a sputtering deposition system comprising most of the limitations of claim 1. Final Action 3^4. The Examiner cites Schulz to teach alkali metal (lithium) as a target material. Id. at 4. The Examiner finds that Miyazaki teaches a removable cover configured to fit over the target material and finds a motivation to 4 Appeal 2016-001279 Application 13/301,718 combine Miyazaki’s removable cover with the sputtering apparatus of Johnson in view of Schulz, namely “to prevent contamination and damage to the sputtering target while handling the target as taught by Miyazaki.” Id. at 5—6. In addition, the Examiner finds that Demaray ’822 teaches a handle on the exterior of a target cover and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine Demaray ’822’s exterior handle with the sputtering apparatus of Johnson, Schulz, and Miyazaki, namely “in order to lift the cover off the target assembly as taught by Demaray.” Id. at 6. The Examiner further finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would “see the benefit of using a handle to assist in the removal of the cover” of Miyazaki. Ans. 14; see also Final Action 14 (“One having ordinary skill in the art would see the benefit of applying a handle to the cover of Miyazaki.”). Appellants argue that the combination of Miyazaki and Demaray ’822 does not teach a handle mounted to the exterior surface of a cover completely within a chamber. App. Br. 6. Appellants additionally argue that, in Demaray ’822, the top chamber cap is distinct from the target assembly, and that the use of handles in a sputtering target cover was not known at the time of the invention. Reply Br. 3^4. We are not persuaded that Appellants identity reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s finding that Miyazaki teaches a removable cover that is completely within a vacuum chamber. Final Action 5. The Examiner’s finding is supported by Miyazaki Figures 1—6, which show (a) sputtering target 20, including target material 22 and disc-like base 21, and (b) covering 10, including cover part 11 having stop 5 Appeal 2016-001279 Application 13/301,718 pin portions 12, which are removably engaged in slot 25 of base 21. Miyazaki || 15—19, Figs. 1—6. The Examiner’s finding is further supported by Miyazaki Figure 7, which shows covering 10 and sputtering target 20 completely within vacuum chamber 32. Id. 124, Fig. 7. Appellants also do not challenge the Examiner’s finding that Miyazaki teaches removal and replacement of the cover within the vacuum chamber. Final Action 5. The Examiner’s finding is supported by Miyazaki, which discloses a sputtering method, including the sequential steps of fixing sputtering target 20 within chamber 32, removing covering 10 from the sputtering target, and performing sputtering. Id. 24, 25. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the combination of Miyazaki and Demaray ’822 does not teach a handle mounted to the exterior surface of a cover completely within a chamber. App. Br. 6. Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would see the benefit of applying a handle to the cover of Miyazaki. Compare Final Action 14, with App. Br. 6. The Examiner identifies the benefit, namely: “to assist in the removal of the cover” of Miyazaki. Ans. 14. The Examiner’s findings are sufficient to establish a reason or motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify a removable cover, as taught by Miyazaki, to include a handle. Final Action 14; Ans. 14. Adding a handle to Miyazaki’s cover, as proposed by the Examiner, would result in a handle mounted on a cover that is completely within a chamber, as recited in claim 1. As evidenced by Demaray ’822 and as a matter of common sense, to assist in removal of the cover, the handle would need to be mounted on an exterior surface of the cover. Demaray ’822, 6 Appeal 2016-001279 Application 13/301,718 18:65—19:3, Fig. 40 (showing lift handles 233 mounted on an exterior surface of top chamber cap 209 to assist in lifting the top chamber cap and accessing the target assembly). Appellants argue that the handle taught by Demaray ’822 is not mounted to an exterior surface of a cover completely within a chamber. App. Br. 6. Appellants’ argument is not persuasive because, as just discussed, adding a handle to Miyazaki’s cover results in a handle mounted to the exterior surface of a cover that is completely within a chamber. See, e.g., Miyazaki Fig. 7 (showing covering 10 completely within vacuum chamber 32). Appellants additionally argue that Demaray ’822 does not provide a motivation to modify Miyazaki’s cover, as opposed to its “top chamber cap,” if any. App. Br. 6. Appellants’ argument is not persuasive because, as just discussed, the Examiner’s unchallenged findings regarding Miyazaki are sufficient to establish a reason or motivation to add a handle to Miyazaki’s cover. Final Action 14; Ans. 14. Demaray ’822 provides further support for a reason to add a handle to a cover, namely to assist in lifting the cover. Demaray ’822, 18:65—19:3. We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Claim 6 Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and recites that the deposition system further comprises: a nonsputtering zone within said vacuum chamber for accommodation of said cover separate from said metal sputter target, wherein said deposition system is configured to accommodate automated removal of said cover in said vacuum chamber held under vacuum and storage of said cover separate 7 Appeal 2016-001279 Application 13/301,718 from said metal sputter target in said non-sputtering zone adjacent to said metal sputter target. App. Br. 11. Regarding claim 6, the Examiner finds that Davenport teaches a sputtering deposition system including sputter target 56 having a removable cover (isolation plate 62). The Examiner finds that Davenport additionally teaches a non-sputtering zone (isolation valve 60), which accommodates automated removal of the cover in the vacuum chamber separate from the sputtering target. Final Action 10 (citing Davenport, 4:20-5:63, Figs. 3 and 4). The Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine Davenport’s non-sputtering zone and cover system with the apparatus of Johnson, Shulz, Miyazaki, and Demaray ’822, namely: “in order to reduce the amount of time required to draw a vacuum after replacing consumables or performing routine maintenance by preserving the vacuum in a portion of the chamber as taught by Davenport.” Id. Appellants argue that no one skilled in the art would consider an isolation valve to be a non-sputtering zone within a vacuum chamber and that Davenport does not teach or suggest that this isolation valve is able to accommodate or store a cover, such as Davenport’s lid 55. App. Br. 7. Appellants additionally argue that Miyazaki’s cylindrically-shaped target cover 10 cannot be removed from the target and stored using Davenport’s isolation valve 60. Reply Br. 4—5. We are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6. Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art a motivation to combine Davenport’s non-sputtering 8 Appeal 2016-001279 Application 13/301,718 zone and cover system with the apparatus of Johnson, Shulz, Miyazaki, and Demaray ’822. Final Action 10. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Davenport fails to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 6. The Examiner correctly finds that Davenport teaches a non-sputtering zone (isolation valve 60), which accommodates and stores a removable cover (isolation plate 62). Davenport, Fig. 2 (showing isolation plate 62 retracted within isolation valve 60); id. Fig. 3 (showing isolation plate 62 extended into vacuum chamber 50 and covering sputter target 56); see also id. at 5:8— 6:1 (description of Figs. 2 and 3). As the Examiner correctly finds, Davenport teaches automated removal of the cover. Id. 3:45—49, 7:14—18, Fig. 7 (showing actuator 61 for moving isolation plate 62 between retracted and extended positions). The Examiner is also correct in finding that Davenport’s isolation valve 60 is a non-sputtering zone within a vacuum chamber. As correctly noted by the Examiner (Ans. 16), Davenport’s isolation valve 60 is positioned out of a line of sight from the sputtering target to the substrate. See Davenport Figs. 2 and 5 (showing isolation valve 60 out of line of sight from sputter target 56 to workpiece support 57). The Examiner is also correct (Ans. 16) that Davenport teaches a shield 66 and other alternative structures for shielding isolation valve 60 from the sputtering. Davenport 5:64—61, 6:64—7:1, Figs. 2—6 (valve port shield 66 in the form of a hinged flap); see also id. 7:4—12, Fig. 7 (secondary valve 80 for protecting the isolation valve 60 from the process environment). Davenport also teaches that isolation valve 60 is part of a vacuum chamber and is held under vacuum during removal of the cover in the vacuum chamber. Id. 5:43—63, Fig. 5 (isolation plate 62 is opened after a vacuum is reestablished in first 9 Appeal 2016-001279 Application 13/301,718 portion 54 of the vacuum chamber); see also 3:42—43 (the isolation valve has a vacuum-tight housing enclosing a rigid isolation plate). Applicants’ argument regarding a physical combination of Miyazaki’s cover 10 and Davenport’s isolation valve 60 (Reply Br. 5) is based on an improper legal standard and an overly narrow reading of the teachings of the cited references. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements”); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6. Claim 8 Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and recites: said multiple power sources include a first radio frequency power source coupled to said target and a second radio frequency power source coupled to said target, said first and second radio frequency power sources being configured to provide different frequencies to said metal sputter target. App. Br. 11. The Examiner finds that Demaray ’330 teaches dual radio frequency (RF) sources that apply different frequencies to the sputter target. Final Action 12 (citing Demaray 143, Fig. la). The Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine Demaray ’330’s dual RF system with the sputtering apparatus of Johnson, Schulz, 10 Appeal 2016-001279 Application 13/301,718 Miyazaki, and Demaray ’822, namely: “in order to utilize [d]ual RF power where the high frequency RF power is chiefly responsible for sputtering the material of target and the low frequency RF power causes ions in the plasma to bombard the film being deposited on the substrate, resulting in sputtering and densification of the film as taught by Demaray ’330.” Id. Appellants argue that Schulz and Demaray ’330 describe different sputtering targets (lithium versus Si02), and in view of this difference, there would be no reasonable expectation of success in adapting Demaray ’330’s power sources to Schulz’s deposition process. App. Br. 8. Appellants additionally argue that the methods and equipment for sputtering of low melting temperature metals (such as alkali and alkali earth metals) and high melting temperature insulating dielectrics (such as Si02) are not readily interchangeable. Reply Br. 4. We are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8. Appellants’ argument is conclusory and insufficient to show error in the Examiner’s implicit finding of a reasonable expectation of success. Appellants do not present evidence adequate to show error in the Examiner’s finding that: It is well within the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine benefits of sputtering systems with different sputtering target materials. A sputtering apparatus is made in order to utilize multiple target materials and not just a single target material. Ans. 16. The Examiner’s finding is supported by the cited art, which discloses sputtering apparatus for use with various target materials. Johnson 1128, Fig. 8 (disclosing variation of sputtering yield for different target 11 Appeal 2016-001279 Application 13/301,718 materials—Ta, Hf, Fe, andNi); Schulz, 1:66, 2:30—31 (disclosing lithium compounds, such as LiCCA, and metallic lithium as sputtering targets); Miyazaki 115 (disclosing target materials such as aluminum and titanium); Demaray ’822, 1:23—26 (sputtering is “commonly used . . . for the deposition of thin films of various metals such as aluminum, aluminum alloys, refractory metal silicides, gold, copper, titanium-tungsten, tungsten, molybdenum, tantalum, and less commonly silicon dioxide and silicon”); id. at 10:25—27 (disclosing aluminum and titanium as target materials); Demaray ’330 124 (target materials include quartz, alumina, sapphire, oxides, fluorides, sulfides, nitrides, phosphates, sulfates, and carbonates). Appellants argue that the sputtering of alkali metals and alkaline earth metals has “special challenges.” App. Br. 8 (citing Spec. 118); Reply Br. 5. Appellants do not, however, explain how these “special challenges” relate to the subject matter of claim 8. More specifically, Appellants do not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have used the dual RF power source technique of Demaray ’330 with an alkali metal target, such as lithium. For example, Appellants do not explain how the lower melting point of alkali metals and alkaline earth metals, as compared with silica, impacts whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using dual RF power sources to sputter an alkali metal target, such as lithium. We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8. CONCLUSION OF LAW AND DECISION The weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, the § 103(a) rejections are sustained. 12 Appeal 2016-001279 Application 13/301,718 The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1—4, 6—18, 22, 23, and 25 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)(1). AFFIRMED 13 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation