Ex Parte Rosenblum et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 24, 2012

11112880 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 24, 2012)

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.
11/112,880 04/22/2005 Martin Philip Rosenblum VIT 0018 IA/40926.92 5332
23368 7590 04/24/2012
DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
FIFTH THIRD CENTER, ONE SOUTH MAIN STREET
SUITE 1300
DAYTON, OH 45402-2023
EXAMINER
MOORE, KARLA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/24/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte MARTIN PHILIP ROSENBLUM, XI CHU,
LORENZA MORO, KENNETH JEFFREY NELSON,
PAUL E. BURROWS, MARK E. GROSS,
MAC R. ZUMHOFF, PETER E. MARTIN,
CHARLES C. BONHAM, and GORDON L. GRAFF
________________

Appeal 2010-011415
Application 11/112,880
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 9-42 and 66-81 of Application
11/112,880. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants come to the Board
seeking reversal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
App
App

depo
’880
inven
depo
comp
Clus
tool
eal 2010-0
lication 11
The ’880
siting mul
applicatio
tion that i
Figure 7
siting mul
rised of c
ter tool sec
section 33
11415
/112,880
applicati
tilayer coa
n, reprodu
s the subje
is a block
tiple layer
luster tool
tion 310 i
0 is used f
Bac
on disclose
tings onto
ced below
ct of the c
diagram o
s on a shee
section 31
s used for
or organic
2
kground
s and seek
sheet sub
, shows th
laims at is
f an arran
t substrate
0 and in-l
inorganic
layer depo

s to claim
strates. Sp
e embodim
sue in this
gement of
. Spec. 15
ine tool se
layer depo
sition. Id.
an appara
ec. 1. Figu
ent of the
appeal.
a hybrid t
. Tool 30
ction 330.
sition, wh

tus for
re 7 of the
claimed
ool for
0 is
Spec. 33.
ile in-line

Appeal 2010-011415
Application 11/112,880

3
In cluster tool section 310, a central robot 312 is located in a central
hub region 313. Id. Central robot 312 transports substrates 6 between various
process stations in a programmed sequence. Id. Examples of the various
types of process stations include a thin film coating deposition station 314, a
thermal evaporation station 316, a mask stocker station 318, a load lock 320,
an etching station 322, a sputtering station 324 and a mask aligner station
326. Id. Each of the peripheral stations, as well as the central hub region
313, are coupled to a vacuum means 350 (which can be, for example, a
vacuum pump) to establish and maintain internal vacuum as required. Id.
In-line tool section 330 includes organic material deposition station
334, organic material curing section 336, and substrate transport 338. Id. at
42. Substrate transport 338 is capable of moving the substrate at least
between organic material deposition station 334 and organic material curing
section 336. Id. Isolation valve 333 is used to separate organic material
deposition station 334 from the mask alignment chamber 332. Id.
The claims on appeal seek to cover various configurations of this
general nature.
Issues
1) Whether the Examiner correctly rejected claims 9-11, 19-42,
and 66-71 of the ’880 application under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,827,788 B2 (“Takahashi,”
issued Dec. 7, 2004).
2) Whether the Examiner correctly rejected claims 12-18 of the
’880 application under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Takahashi in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,661,117 (“Cornelius,”
issued May 9, 1972).
App
App

for m
Taka
ll. 23
eal 2010-0
lication 11
3) W
ob
(“
4) W
ob
U
5) W
ob
Takaha
aking dep
hashi is re
Figure 1
-24. The s
11415
/112,880
hether the
vious ove
Feldman,”
hether the
vious ove
.S. Patent N
hether the
vious ove
shi. The ex
osition co
produced
is a schem
ubstrate p
Examiner
r Takahash
issued Fe
Examiner
r Takahash
o. 7,429,
Examiner
r Takahash
P
aminer ci
atings on s
below.
atic view
rocessing
4
correctly
i in view
b. 2, 1982
correctly
i in view
300 B2 (“
correctly
i in view
rior Art
ted Takaha
ubstrates.
of a substr
equipment
rejected cl
of U.S. Pa
).
rejected cl
of Feldma
Kido,” issu
rejected cl
of Kido.
shi as tea
Ans. 4-5.

ate proces
includes a
aims 66-7
tent No. 4
aims 72 an
n further i
ed Sept. 3
aims 74-8
ching a hy
Figure 1 f
sing devic
plurality
1as
,313,254
d 73 as
n view of
0, 2008).
1 as
brid tool
rom
e. Col. 5,
of vacuum
App
App

cham
58-c
centr
lock
in th
proc
depo
orga
mate
with
Figu
Corn
eal 2010-0
lication 11
bers inclu
ol. 6, l. 22
al directio
chambers
e diagram)
essing cha
Corneliu
sition stat
nic materi
rial evapo
the evapo
re 1 is repr
Figure 1
elius. The
11415
/112,880
ding proc
. Processin
n-changin
. Id. The eq
for transf
mbers and
s. The Ex
ion that the
al. Ans. 9.
rator, a ma
rator, and
oduced be
is a view
device co
essing cha
g chambe
g chamber
uipment a
erring the
a vacuum
aminer cit
Examine
The mater
terial depo
a material
low.
of a mater
mprises cr
5
mbers 21,
rs 21, 22, a
8. Id. Cha
lso includ
substrate i
pumping
ed Cornel
r determin
ial deposit
sition noz
confineme
ial deposit
ucible 10,
22, 23, an
nd 24 are
mbers 11L
es a transf
n sequenc
system (no
ius for its t
es is capab
ion station
zle in flui
nt system
ion device
substrate
d 24. Id. at
located ar
and 11R
er system
e to the plu
t shown).
eaching o
le of vapo
comprise
d commun
. Id. Corne
described
support 12
col.5, l.
ound
are load-
(not show
rality of
Id.
f a materia
rizing
s a
ication
lius’s

in
, and
n
l
Appeal 2010-011415
Application 11/112,880

6
carrier gas source 14. Col. 2, ll. 25-27. Vaporizable material 20 is placed in
the crucible and heated. Id. at col. 2, ll. 32-35. The vaporized material
collects in head space 22 and is carried out of crucible 10 via tube 30. Id. at
col. 2, ll. 44-58. The material exits tube 30 through nozzle 34. Id. Deposition
of the material on substrate 36 is controlled by the operation of shutter 50.
Id. at col. 2, ll. 68-74.
Feldman. The Examiner cited Feldman for its teaching of an
exchange mechanism to facilitate transport in a multi-chamber tool. Ans. 15.
Kido. The Examiner cited Kido for its teaching of multiple containers
including both organic and inorganic vapor deposition sources which are
independently heated in the deposition chamber. Ans. 12.
Discussion
Issue 1
The Examiner rejected claims 9-11, 19-42, and 66-71 as obvious over
Takahashi. Claim 9 is representative of this group of claims and is
reproduced below:
9. A device for depositing material onto a discrete substrate,
said device comprising:
a cluster tool configured to deposit at least one inorganic layer
onto said substrate;
an in-line tool configured to deposit at least one organic layer
onto said substrate, said in-line tool operatively coupled to said
cluster tool; and
a reduced-pressure source placed in vacuum communication
with at least said in-line tool such that during at least a portion
of deposition of said organic layer onto said discrete substrate,
said reduced-pressure source operates to create an at least
partially evacuated environment about said substrate.
Appeal 2010-011415
Application 11/112,880

7
Br. 14 (emphasis added).
As the Examiner noted, Takahashi discloses a tool for depositing
material onto discrete substrates comprising a cluster tool that is capable of
depositing at least one inorganic layer onto the substrates, an in-line tool
capable of depositing at least one organic barrier layer onto the substrate,
and a reduced pressure source. Id. at 3. Each of these elements is operably
connected to the others. Id.
Appellants argue that Takahashi does not expressly teach two of the
claim limitations: (1) a cluster tool configured to deposit at least one
inorganic layer onto said substrate, and (2) an in-line tool configured to
deposit at least one organic layer onto said substrate. Br. 7.
Takahashi does not expressly teach any particular configuration for its
processing chambers 21, 22, 23, and 24, but notes that the configuration of
these chambers will be customized to the details of the process for which the
tool will be used. Takahashi, col. 10, ll. 9-11.
Appellants’ claim is similarly devoid of any structural limitations on
the processing chambers included in the claims. See, e.g., claim 9. Rather
than providing any structural limitations on the claimed apparatus,
Appellants rely upon statements of intended use for the different portions of
the claimed apparatus to distinguish the claimed device from the prior art.
Br. 9.
These claims, however, are directed to an apparatus. As such, the
apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art on the basis of structure,
and where there is reason to conclude that the prior art apparatus is
inherently capable of performing the claimed function, the burden shifts to
the applicant to show that the claimed function patentably distinguishes the
Appeal 2010-011415
Application 11/112,880

8
claimed structure from the prior art structure. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d
1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Hallman, 655 F.2d 212, 215 (CCPA
1981).
A statement of intended use does not distinguish the claimed
invention over the prior art. In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492 (CCPA 1962). A
use limitation does not impart a structural feature different from the features
disclosed in the prior art. In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973).
In this case, Appellants have not pointed to any claimed structural
detail that differentiates their device from the prior art. They emphasize that
the exemplary processes discussed in Takahashi—sputtering, chemical
vapor deposition, and etching—are typically associated with the deposition
and processing of inorganic layers. Ans. 9 (discussing Takahashi, col. 10, ll.
11-48). Appellants therefore suggest that Takahashi’s device is somehow
incompatible with deposition of organic materials. This argument fails for at
least two reasons. First, this argument improperly limits the knowledge of
the skilled artisan to that which is disclosed within the four corners of
Takahashi. Second, even if one reads Takahashi as limited to using the
device for the specific processes disclosed in the reference, the Examiner
explained that at least some of the processes expressly disclosed in
Takahashi can be used to deposit layers of organic material, Ans. 14-15.
Other than attorney argument, Appellants have offered no evidence (e.g., an
expert’s declaration) or other meaningful discussion based on facts
demonstrating error on the part of the Examiner. Br. 8, 28. Thus, we discern
no error in the Examiner’s position that there appears to be no patentable
structural difference between Takahashi’s device and that of claim 9.
Appeal 2010-011415
Application 11/112,880

9
For this reason, Appellants have not met their burden of
demonstrating a structural limitation recited in their claims that distinguishes
the claimed device from the device taught and suggested by Takahashi.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9-11, 19-42, and 66-71.
Issue 2
The Examiner rejected claims 12-18 as obvious over Takahashi in
view of Cornelius. Claim 12 is representative of this group of claims and is
reproduced below:
12. (Original) The device of claim 11, wherein said organic
material deposition station comprises:
an organic material evaporator;
an organic material deposition nozzle in fluid communication
with said evaporator; and
an organic material confinement system disposed about said
nozzle.
Appellants argue that claims 12-18 were improperly rejected because
the asserted combination of Takahashi and Cornelius fail to disclose an
organic material deposition station. Br. 9-10. As Appellants correctly point
out, Cornelius does not discuss the deposition of organic materials. Indeed,
Cornelius discusses the deposition of atoms, rather than molecules, col. 2, ll.
32-43, and specifically mentions the deposition of conductive metals like
silver and copper, and well as dielectric materials such as zinc oxide, col. 3,
ll. 8-17.
Appellants, however, have failed to identify any reason why the
Cornelius device, when operated under appropriate conditions, would not
serve to deposit organic materials. For example, as the Examiner states, a
person of skill in the art would know that organic materials can serve as
Appeal 2010-011415
Application 11/112,880

10
dielectrics in a variety of applications. Ans. 15. Furthermore, the choice of
temperature to which the crucible is heated to vaporize a particular organic
material as opposed to a metal is well within the level of skill in the art.
Most importantly, Appellants have not identified any structural
difference between their claimed organic material deposition station and the
material deposition station taught in Cornelius. The appealed claims are
apparatus claims, and must be distinguished from the prior art on the basis of
their structure. Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1478. We therefore sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 12-18.
Issue 3
The Examiner rejected claims 66-71 as obvious over Takahashi in
view of Feldman. Claim 66 is representative and is reproduced below:
66. A tool comprising:
an encapsulation device comprising:
an organic layer forming station comprising:
an organic material deposition station;
an organic material curing station
cooperative with said organic material
deposition station;
a substrate-transport configured to convey a
substrate between at least said organic
material deposition station and said organic
material curing station;
a reduced-pressure source placed in vacuum
communication with said organic material
deposition station such that during at least a
portion of deposition of an organic layer
onto said discrete substrate, said reduced-
pressure source operates to create an at least
Appeal 2010-011415
Application 11/112,880

11
partially evacuated environment about said
substrate; and
a thermal control mechanism cooperative
with at least one of said organic material
deposition station and organic material
curing station such that a temperature
therein can be controlled during formation
of said organic material on said substrate;
and
a barrier layer forming station configured to place
at least one inorganic layer onto said substrate or
said organic layer formed on said substrate, said
barrier layer forming station and said organic layer
forming station cooperative with one another such
that upon operation thereof at least one
encapsulated member is formed on said substrate;
a load lock to facilitate selective vacuum isolation
between said encapsulation device and a remainder of
said tool; and
an exchange mechanism to facilitate transport of said at
least one encapsulated member between said
encapsulation device and said remainder of said tool.
Appellants argue that the claims in this group were erroneously
rejected because Feldman does not remedy the alleged failure of Takehashi
to teach all of the claimed elements. Br. 10. In particular, Appellants argue
that Feldman is directed to depositing semiconductor layers that include
transition metal borides and doped silicon regions. Id. Therefore, Appellants
argue, the skilled artisan would not have been motivated to modify
Feldman’s teachings in combination with Takahashi in a manner that
rendered the claimed invention obvious. Id. at 10-11.
Appeal 2010-011415
Application 11/112,880

12
Appellants’ arguments regarding Feldman are misdirected. The
Examiner cited Feldman as teaching a substrate accumulator/exchange
mechanism that facilitates transport in a multi-chamber tool. Final Office
Action 8-9 (May 28, 2009); Ans. 15. For this reason, Appellants’ discussion
of the process carried out in Feldman is irrelevant to the particular teaching
for which it was cited.
Furthermore, Appellants’ remaining objections concerning the alleged
use of the tool taught in Takahashi versus their intended use do not
distinguish their claimed invention from the prior art in any structural
manner. For this reason, we sustain the rejection of claims 66-71.
Issue 4
The Examiner rejected claims 72 and 73 as obvious over Takahashi in
view of Feldman further in view of Kido. Claim 72 is representative of this
group of claims and is reproduced below:
72. The tool of claim 66, wherein said at least one organic
layer forming station is further configured to deposit at least
one inorganic layer onto said substrate.
In seeking reversal of these rejections, Appellants present the
arguments that we have already found insufficient in connection with the
claims discussed in Issues 1 and 3, supra. For those reasons, we also affirm
the rejection of claims 72 and 73.
Issue 5
The Examiner rejected claims 74-81 as obvious over Takahashi in
view of Kido. Claim 74 is representative
74. The device of claim 9, wherein said in-line tool is further
configured to deposit at least one inorganic layer onto said
substrate.
Appeal 2010-011415
Application 11/112,880

13
In arguing for reversal of the rejections of these claims, Appellants
present the arguments that we have already found insufficient in connection
with the claims discussed in Issue 1, supra. For those reasons, we also affirm
the rejection of claims 74-81.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the rejections of claims 9-42
and 66-81 of the ’880 application.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

sld