Ex Parte Ouye et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 9, 2019

13276493 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/276,493 10/19/2011 Alan Ouye
44257 7590 05/13/2019
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP- -Applied Materials
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
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.
1391 lUS 8939
EXAMINER
LUND, JEFFRIE ROBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/13/2019 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):
Pair_Eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALAN OUYE and RENEE MARGUERITE KOCH
Appeal2018-006542
Application 13/276,493
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, MICHAEL G. MCMANUS, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants2 appeal from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4,
18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kenworthy3 in view of
1 In explaining our Decision, we cite to the Specification of October 19,
2011 (Spec.), Final Office Action of September 5, 201 7 (Final), Appeal
Brief of December 11, 2017 (Appeal Br.), Examiner's Answer of May 3,
2018 (Ans.), and Reply Brief of June 6, 2018 (Reply Br.).
2 Applied Materials, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br.
3.
3 Kenworthy et al., US2008/02415157 Al, published Oct. 2, 2008.
Appeal2018-006542
Application 13/276,493
Brooker4 and Omi5 and claims 6-10 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
obvious over Todorow6 in view of Kenworthy, Brooker, and Omi. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
The claims are directed to a chamber component for use in a plasma
processing apparatus (see, e.g., claim 1) and an apparatus for use in a plasma
processing chamber having a substrate pedestal adapted to support a
substrate (see, e.g., claim 6). The claims require a body ( claim 1) or plate
( claim 6), a layer of aluminum polished to a finish of 8 µin Ra or smoother
disposed on the body or plate, and a hard anodized coating disposed on the
polished layer of aluminum. See, e.g., claims 1 and 6. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. A chamber component, for use in a plasma processing
apparatus, comprising:
an aluminum body having a polished aluminum coating
disposed on an outer surface of the body and a hard anodized
coating disposed on the polished aluminum coating, wherein
the polished aluminum coating is polished to a finish of 8 µin
Ra or smoother.
Appeal Br. 16 (claims appendix).
4 Brooker et al., US 5,723,221, issued Mar. 3, 1998.
5 Omi, JP 09-217197, published Aug. 19, 1997 (English abstract).
6 Todorow, US 2006/0000805 Al, published Jan. 5, 2006.
2
Appeal2018-006542
Application 13/276,493
OPINION
Appellants do not argue any claim apart from the others for either
rejection. Appeal Br. 9-14. Moreover, the issues are the same for both
rejections. Thus, it will suffice for us to select claim 1 as representative for
resolving the issue on appeal.
The issue is whether Appellants have identified a reversible error in
the Examiner's finding of a reason to polish Kenworthy' s aluminum coating
to a finish of 8 µin Ra or smoother given the teachings of Brooker and Omi?
Appellants have not identified such an error.
There is no dispute that Kenworthy teaches a chamber component
( 400 in Fig. 4) for use in a plasma processing apparatus that includes an
aluminum body 410 with an aluminum coating 426 and a hard anodized
coating 428. Compare Final 3, with Appeal Br. 9; see also Kenworthy ,r 31.
The Examiner acknowledges that Kenworthy does not disclose
polishing the aluminum coating before anodizing. Final 3.
Brooker teaches a press plate with upper and lower aluminum
cladding layers 16 and 17 integrally bonded to core plate 15. Brooker col. 6,
1. 66-col. 7, 1. 5; col. 9, 11. 23--40; Figs. 1-2. Brooker discloses polishing
and buffing aluminum cladding layers 16 and 17 to remove minor surface
imperfections before anodizing. Brooker col. 9, 11. 33-35; col. 12, 11. 59---64.
As Appellants point out, Brooker intends to use the resulting press
plate to laminate materials together to form decorative laminates. Appeal
Br. 10. Appellants contend that the ordinary artisan would not use the
teaching of Brooker to modify the teachings of Kenworthy because Brooker
seeks to use the press plate to transfer a visual characteristic to a finished
product, a use not related or pertinent to protecting a surface exposed to
3
Appeal2018-006542
Application 13/276,493
corrosive gasses and ionized particles in a vacuum chamber. Appeal Br. 11-
12. According to Appellants, "methods for forming decorative laminates are
clearly not in the in the field of the Applicants endeavor, nor are they
pertinent to certain sequences of polishing and anodizing to surface
roughness range as claimed in the present application" and "[t]hus, the
Examiner is impermissibly combining non-analogous references." Appeal
Br. 12.
Appellants' reasoning is faulty and does not identify a reversible error
in the Examiner's finding of a suggestion to polish Kenworthy' s aluminum
plating layer 426. Insofar as Appellants are arguing that Brooker is non-
analogous art, we agree with the Examiner that Brooker is reasonably
pertinent to the problems encountered when forming a hard anodized layer
on an aluminum layer. Ans. 9. Brooker specifically discloses buffing to
remove minor surface imperfections before hard anodizing. Brooker col. 12,
11. 59---64. Moreover, Omi provides evidence that polishing by mechanical
grinding to a particular smoothness improves corrosion resistance ( Omi
Abstract), a problem of concern to Kenworthy (Kenworthy ,r 31 ).
With regard to Appellants' argument directed to Omi in combination
with Brooker (Appeal Br. 12-13), it is not directed to the findings and
conclusion of the Examiner. The Examiner applies Omi as evidence of the
level of polishing the ordinary artisan would seek when polishing the
aluminum coating of Kenworthy. See Ans. 10-11.
The Examiner's conclusion that it would have been obvious to polish
Kenworthy's aluminum coating to a finish of 8 µin Ra or smoother based on
the teachings of Brooker and Omi rests on the Examiner's finding of a
suggestion within Brooker to use polishing to remove flaws and prepare the
4
Appeal2018-006542
Application 13/276,493
aluminum surface for anodization and a suggestion within Omi to polish to a
finish of 8 µin Ra or smoother to provide a surface smooth enough to
promote even crystal boundaries that improve electrical and chemical
resistance. Appellants have not identified a reversible error in those
findings.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner's rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.I36(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
5