Ex Parte Laure

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2017

11918187 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 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.
11/918,187 01/22/2009 Stefan Laure LAURE- 1PCT 2506
25889 7590
COLLARD & ROE, P.C.
1077 NORTHERN BOULEVARD
ROSLYN, NY 11576
EXAMINER
HASSANZADEH, PARVIZ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2017 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEFAN LAURE
Appeal 2014-006590
Application 11/918,187
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, TERRY J. OWENS, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—14 and 27—29. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellant claims a device for plasma coating large volume parts.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1: Device for the plasma coating of large volume parts
with a vacuum chamber with one or more pumps,
with a transport device for the conveyance of the part into the vacuum
chamber,
with insulation between the part and the vacuum chamber,
with an oscillating circuit with a high frequency generator,
Appeal 2014-006590
Application 11/918,187
with an adjustable capacitance and an adjustable inductance of the
oscillating circuit,
with at least one connection to connect the oscillating circuit with the
part, and
with at least one plasma torch connected to the vacuum chamber for
the preparation of a coating material for the part,
wherein when the at least one connection connects the oscillating
circuit with the part, the oscillating circuit generates first plasma on the
surface of the part, and
wherein when the at least one plasma torch introduces a separate
plasma beam into the vacuum chamber, the separate plasma beam interacts
with the first plasma.
Coleman
The References
US 4,226,897 Oct. 7, 1980
Kohmura US 4,991,542 Feb. 12, 1991
Yamazaki US 5,079,031 Jan. 7, 1992
Tateno US 5,243,169 Sep. 7, 1993
Knowles US 5,560,779 Oct. 1, 1996
Ye US 6,312,554 B1 Nov. 6, 2001
Iacovangelo US 6,365,016 B1 Apr. 2, 2002
MacGearailt US 2002/0185227 A1 Dec. 12, 2002
Cho US 2004/0244690 A1 Dec. 9, 2004
The Rejections
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1,
2, 8, and 29 over Kohmura in view of Ye, claim 3 over Kohmura in view of
Ye and Cho, claim 4 over Kohmura in view of Ye and Coleman, claim 5
over Kohmura in view of Ye and Knowles, claim 6 over Kohmura in view of
Ye and Yamazaki, claim 7 over Kohmura in view of Ye and MacGearailt,
claims 9—14 and 28 over Kohmura in view of Ye and Tateno and claim 27
over Kohmura in view of Ye and Iacovangelo.
2
Appeal 2014-006590
Application 11/918,187
OPINION
We reverse the rejections. We need address only the sole independent
claim, i.e., claim l.1 That claim requires an oscillating circuit which is
connectable with a part in a vacuum chamber and, when connected with the
part, generates first plasma on the part’s surface, and at least one plasma
torch which is connected to the vacuum chamber and introduces into the
vacuum chamber a separate plasma beam which interacts with the first
plasma.
Kohmura discloses an apparatus for “forming a solid and fine
thin-film having high corrosion-resistive and abrasion-resistive properties on
a substrate by plasma CVD [chemical vapor deposition]” (col. 1,11. 34—38).
The apparatus comprises (col. 2,11. 33—53; col. 11,1. 12 — col. 12,1. 42;
Fig. 20):
feed-gas supplying electrodes [77, 78] disposed facing
each other in a predetermined spacing in a vacuum reaction
chamber [70];
feed-gas supplying means [85, 86] connected to the
feed-gas supplying electrodes [77, 78];
supporting means [88, 89] for supporting an object to be
processed [13’] which is disposed in a predetermined position
between the feed-gas supplying electrodes [77, 78];
high frequency electric power supplying means [75, 90,
91] for supplying a high frequency electric power to the object
to be processed [13’] while the feed-gas supplying
electrodes [77, 78] are being grounded; and
an annular outer work holder [87] provided with a
uniformly thick portion having the substantially same thickness
as that of the object to be processed [13 ’] and abutting against
1 The Examiner does not rely upon additional references applied to
dependent claims for any disclosure that remedies the deficiency in
Kohmura and Ye as to the independent claim (Ans. 5—11).
3
Appeal 2014-006590
Application 11/918,187
an outer surface thereof, the outer work holder [87] being
adapted to hold the object to be processed [13 ’] such that both
faces of the object to be processed [13’] are exposed.
Because the feed gas is supplied from both feed-gas supplying
electrodes (77, 78) to the object to be processed (13’) in the plasma, “a solid
and fine thin film which has corrosion-resistance and abrasion-resistance
properties is easily formed on the object to be processed [13’]” (col. 3,
11. 17-24).
Ye teaches, regarding prior art apparatus for directing a plasma to a
semiconductor wafer surface, that “[a] plasma may be produced directly
above the surface of the wafer within the process environment, or the plasma
may be remotely generated in an applicator, and then conducted to the
surface of the wafer” (col. 1,11. 17—26), and that “[o]ne problem encountered
in prior art applicators of a remote plasma source is that of species
recombination [wherein] [r]eactive species, such as excited species or ions,
that are not quickly delivered from the applicator and delivery tube to the
process chamber can be changed either from ions to neutrals of from an
excited state to a ground state” (col. 1,11. 55—60). Ye’s invention is a plasma
torch which minimizes such recombination by narrowing the channel (38;
Fig. 2) through which process gas is injected into the plasma torch, thereby
increasing the gas flow’s velocity such that plasma formation in the channel
and upstream gas diffusion are minimized (col. 2,11. 9-12, 20-26; col. 3,
11. 19-23). The apparatus can include a process chamber (76) wherein
nonreactive gas ions (72) from a plasma torch are combined with reactive
gas ions (84) generated either within or external to that process chamber
(col. 3,1. 56 — col. 4,1. 17; Fig. 4). Ye discloses, regarding use of the
4
Appeal 2014-006590
Application 11/918,187
apparatus for etching, that “[t]he apparatus is useful for controlling the ratio
of reactive ions to non-reactive ions to thereby improve etch process
performance” (col. 4,11. 30-32).
The Examiner finds that Ye’s “extra plasma would most certainly
interact with the bulk plasma already generated by Kohmura allowing for the
optimization of processing, just as it interacts with the bulk plasma of Ye as
described in Column 4, lines 7-17” (Ans. 12), and concludes that “[i]t would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus
of Kohmura to include an additional plasma torch connected to the chamber
at the top or side of the chamber (i.e. at a position horizontally above the
connection to the part) to introduce a separate plasma beam to interact with
the first plasma on the surface of the part, as suggested by Ye, to vary the
density of non-reactive ions in the chamber to control the ratio of reactive to
non-reactive ions to optimize processing” (Ans. 4).
Establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of an invention
comprising a combination of known elements requires “an apparent reason
to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed” KSR Int 7 Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Ye teaches that apparatus for producing plasma directly above the
surface of a wafer within a process environment, which is the type of
apparatus disclosed by Kohmura (col. 5,11. 4—27; Fig. 1), and apparatus for
remotely generated plasma in an applicator and then conducting it to the
surface of a wafer, which is the type of apparatus disclosed by Ye (col. 1,
11. 12—14; col. 3,1. 66 —col. 4,1. 6; Figs. 2, 4), are alternatives (col. 1,11. 23—
26). The Examiner does not address the differences between Kohmura’s
apparatus and that of Ye and establish that regardless of those differences,
5
Appeal 2014-006590
Application 11/918,187
those references would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an
apparent reason to make the Examiner’s proposed modification to
Kohmura’s apparatus. The reason relied upon by the Examiner, i.e., “to vary
the density of non-reactive ions in the chamber to control the ratio of
reactive to non-reactive ions to optimize processing”, is mere speculation.
Thus, the record indicates that the rejections are based upon
impermissible hindsight in view of the Appellant’s disclosure. 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, 2, 8, and 29 over
Kohmura in view of Ye, claim 3 over Kohmura in view of Ye and Cho,
claim 4 over Kohmura in view of Ye and Coleman, claim 5 over Kohmura in
view of Ye and Knowles, claim 6 over Kohmura in view of Ye and
Yamazaki, claim 7 over Kohmura in view of Ye and MacGearailt, claims 9—
14 and 28 over Kohmura in view of Ye and Tateno and claim 27 over
Kohmura in view of Ye and Iacovangelo are reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
6