Ex Parte Le et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 25, 2013

11484333 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/484,333 07/11/2006 Hien Minh Le 008841.P2/DSS/APVD/DP 7794
44257 7590 01/28/2013
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX
3040 POST OAK BOULEVARD, SUITE 1500
HOUSTON, TX 77056
EXAMINER
BAND, MICHAEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1754
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/28/2013 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 HIEN MINH LE, AKIHIRO HOSOKAWA,
and AVI TEPMAN
____________________

Appeal 2011-010568
Application 11/484,333
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1-6 and 31-43. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons presented by Appellants in their Brief, we REVERSE.
We add the following for emphasis.
The claims are directed to a sputtering magnetron (see Claims 1, 35,
and 40). While Appellants’ Specification sets forth a number of different
embodiments of the magnetron, the claims on appeal are limited to the
App
App

emb
Figu
the c
illus
eal 2011-0
lication 11
odiments d
re 9 depict
laims. Fig
Claim 1,
trative of t
1.
within a
one mag
inner po
therebetw
10568
/484,333
irected to
s an embo
ure 9 is re
Plan view
with the r
he claimed
A sputter
rectangula
netic polar
le [124] of
een, whe
a rectangu
diment of
produced
of a recta
(
eference n
sputterin
ing magne
r outline,
ity perpen
opposed m
rein said p
2
lar spiral m
the rectan
below:
ngularized
Spec. 7:9-

umerals o
g magnetro
tron [120]
including
dicular to
agnetic p
oles [122,
agnetron
gularized s
spiral ma
10)
f Figure 9
n:
arranged
an outer po
the plane
olarity wi
124] are a
(id.). Ap
piral mag
gnetron 12
inserted, i
in a plane
le [122] o
surroundin
th a gap [1
rranged su
pellants’
netron of
0
s
f
g an
26]
ch

App
App

(Cla

and a

antic
35 U
refer

magn
How
Figu
repro
Naka

1 Na
eal 2011-0
lication 11
that the g
spiral wr
ims App’x
As show
closed lo
The Exa
ipated by
.S.C. § 10
ences.
The Exa
etrons ha
ever, as po
res 4 and 1
duced by
zato’s Fig

kazato et a
10568
/484,333
ap [126] f
aps about
. at Br. 18
n in Figur
op as requ
miner reje
Nakazato1
3(a) as obv
miner find
ving the re
inted out
0 have op
Appellant
s. 4 and 1

l., US 4,63
orms a cl
a point wi
(emphasis
e 9, gap 12
ired by the
cts claims
, and furth
ious over
s that Figu
quired gap
by Appell
en gaps as
s, which w
0 plan view

1,106, pa
3
osed loop
thin the pl
added).)
6 has no o
claims.
1-4 under
er rejects t
Nakazato
res 4 and
that form
ants, the m
shown at
e reproduc
s as repro
tented Dec
formed in
ane.
pen ends,
35 U.S.C.
he other p
in view of
10 of Nak
s a closed
agnetrons
A and B in
e below:
duced by
. 23, 1986
more than
but is con
§102(b) a
ending cla
various s
azato depi
loop (Ans
of Nakaza
the Figur
Appellant
.
two
tinuous
s
ims under
econdary
ct
. 3-4).
to’s
es

s at Br. 10

Appeal 2011-010568
Application 11/484,333

4

The Examiner points out that Appellants’ Specification at page 9, lines
2-9 and in Figures 3 and 4 teaches another embodiment of their invention
that has a serpentine magnetron with a gap forming a closed plasma loop
(Ans. 11). However, this embodiment is not the embodiment of Appellants’
invention encompassed by the claims on appeal. Moreover, the claims on
appeal specifically require a “gap that forms a closed loop.” Interpreting the
claims as broadly as is reasonable and consistent with Appellants’
Specification, it is clear that “gap that forms a closed loop” in the context of
the appealed claims refers to a gap that has no openings, it does not refer to a
plasma loop. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner
reversibly erred in interpreting a “gap that forms a closed loop” as
encompassing a closed plasma loop (Br. 10-11).
Because the Examiner relies upon Nakazato in the same manner in all
the rejections and the secondary references are not relied upon in a manner
that cures the deficiencies of the above discussed rejection, we reverse all of
the rejections for the reasons presented above.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.

REVERSED
cam