Ex Parte Okimoto et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2016

13060376 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/060,376 02/23/2011 Tadao Okimoto
22850 7590 09/26/2016
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP,
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
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.
375642US26PCT 8327
EXAMINER
WANGA, TIMON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1756
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2016 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):
patentdocket@oblon.com
oblonpat@oblon.com
ahudgens@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TADAO OKIMOTO and HIROSHI TAMAGAKI
Appeal2014-008948
Application 13/060,376
Technology Center 1700
Before PETER F. KRATZ, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1---6. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6. An oral hearing was conducted on September 15, 2016.
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a sputter device that
includes plural sputter evaporation sources and a power supply device that
includes a power source connected to the plural sputter evaporation sources
in a manner so as to supply continuous power to each of the sputter
evaporation sources (Spec. i-f 18).
In addition to the aforementioned power source, the power supply
device of Appellants' claimed sputter device further includes a DC voltage
generating unit and a pulse distribution and supply system connected to the
Appeal2014-008948
Application 13/060,376
cathode side of the DC voltage generation unit and each of the sputter
evaporation sources via switching elements of the pulse distribution and
supply system (Spec. i-fi-f 18, 25, 26, Fig. 1 ).
Furthermore, a controller is configured and connected so as to control
respective switching elements to selectively assume an ON state so as to
distribute and supply pulsed power from the DC voltage generating unit to
each of the sputter evaporation sources sequentially in a time division pulsed
state (Spec. ,-r 27).
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is illustrative and
reproduced below:
Claim 1. A sputter device, comprising:
a plurality of sputter evaporation sources; and
a power supply device for supplying power to a plurality of said
sputter evaporation sources, wherein
said power supply device comprises
a power source provided to each of a plurality of said sputter
evaporation sources and connected to said plurality of sputter evaporation
sources so as to supply continuous power to each of said sputter evaporation
sources,
a DC voltage generating unit common to said plurality of sputter
evaporation sources, and
a pulse distribution and supply system connected to the cathode side
of said DC voltage generating unit, wherein the pulse distribution and supply
system includes a switching element connected between said cathode side of
said DC voltage generating unit and each of said sputter evaporation
sources, said switching elements each being positionable in ON and OFF
states to selectively connect the cathode side of said DC voltage generating
unit and a respective one of said sputter evaporation sources, and a controller
connected and configured to control the respective switching elements to
selectively assume the ON state, to thereby distribute and supply pulsed
power from said DC voltage generating unit to each of said sputter
evaporation sources sequentially in a time division pulse state.
2
Appeal2014-008948
Application 13/060,376
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Tuymer et al.
Kouznetsov
US 2005/0098430 Al
US 2006/0278518 Al
May 12, 2005
("Tuymer")
Dec. 14, 2006
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
Claims 1---6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kouznetsov in view of Tuymer.
We reverse the stated rejection substantially for the reasons argued by
Appellants (App. Br. 4--8; Reply Br. 1-3).
It is well settled that the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
non-patentability resides with the Examiner. See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Here, the Examiner's reliance on a
combination of Kouznetsov and Tuymer to underpin the stated obviousness
rejection is not well-founded.
The Examiner has basically determined that Kouznetsov teaches a
sputter device substantially corresponding to claim 1 but does not teach "the
presence of a plurality of sputter evaporation sources" or "a DC pulse
distribution system," as recited in the claim. (Ans. 2).
In particular and contrary to the Examiner's findings, the Examiner
has not established that Kouznetsov teaches or suggests a power source
connected to a sputter evaporation source in a manner to supply continuous
power to the sputter evaporation source in combination with a DC voltage
generation unit and a pulse distribution and supply system connected to the
cathode side of the DC voltage generation unit and the sputter evaporation
source via a switching element of a pulse distribution and supply system.
3
Appeal2014-008948
Application 13/060,376
Nor has the Examiner established that Kouznetsov teaches or suggests a
power source connected to plural sputter evaporation sources in a manner so
as to supply continuous power to each of the sputter evaporation sources and
further includes a DC voltage generating unit and a pulse distribution and
supply system connected to the cathode side of the DC voltage generation
unit and each of the sputter evaporation sources via switching elements of
the pulse distribution and supply system, as more fully set forth in
Appellants' claim 1.
For instance, the Examiner appears to conflate Kouznetsov' s
disclosures with respect to an energy source for supplying biasing pulses as
set forth in paragraph 59 and the disclosures with respect to a pulse
generator connected for work piece biasing as set forth in paragraph 114
with the provision of a power source connected to a sputter evaporation
source in a manner so as to supply continuous power to the sputter
evaporation source (Ans. 3, 6-8). However, the cited disclosures of
Kouznetsov do not support the Examiner's findings as urged by Appellants
(App. Br. 4--6; Reply Br. 1-2).
Moreover and as argued by Appellants, the Examiner has not
established that Tuymer makes up for the deficiencies in the teachings of
Kouznetsov by teaching or suggesting a sputter device having a power
supply device including a power source connected to plural sputter
evaporation sources in a manner so as to supply continuous power to each of
the sputter evaporation sources and a DC voltage generating unit as well as a
pulse distribution and supply system connected to the cathode side of the DC
voltage generation unit and each of the sputter evaporation sources via
switching elements of the pulse distribution and supply system, and
4
Appeal2014-008948
Application 13/060,376
including a controller and configured so as to distribute and supply pulsed
power from the DC voltage generating unit to each of the sputter
evaporation sources sequentially in a time division pulsed state, as more
fully set forth in Appellants' claim 1 (App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 3).
After all, rejections based on§ 103(a) must rest on a factual basis with
these facts being properly set forth and interpreted without hindsight
reconstruction of the invention from the prior art. See In re Warner, 379
F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).
On this record, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejections of
the appealed claims.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner's decision to reject the appealed claims is reversed.
REVERSED
5