Ex Parte Rudigier et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2018

13130050 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/130,050 08/02/2011
76444 7590
Setter Roche LLP
14694 Orchard Parkway
Building A, Suite 200
Westminster, CO 80023
03/29/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Helmut Rudigier
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.
339.0156 4390
EXAMINER
MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1756
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2018 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):
uspto@setterroche.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HELMUT RUDIGIER,
JURGEN RAMM, BENO WIDRIG, and TROY VOM BRAUCKE
Appeal 2016-004590
Application 13/130,050
Technology Center 1700
Before GEORGE C. BEST, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1-17 of Application 13/130,050
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. (February 4, 2015).
Appellants 1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
1 Oerlikon Trading AG is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal2016-004590
Application 13/130,050
BACKGROUND
The '050 Application describes a method for pretreating substrates to
be used in the vapor deposition processes. Spec. i-f 1. In particular, the
method makes use of a metal ion etching process. Id. i-fi-12-7. The
Specification states that
[t]he object of the invention is a zero layer deposition rate
despite the fact that the arc deposition sources are operational,
i.e. the production of an equilibrium state between material
buildup and material removal on/from the surface, and the
possibility of controlling th[ e] equilibrium state by means of the
substrate bias.
Id. i-f 26; see also id. i-f 29-30.
Claim 1 is representative of the '050 Application's claims and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix.
1. A method for surface treatment of work pieces in a
vacuum treatment system having a first electrode embodied as a
target, which is part of an arc vaporization source, comprising:
using the first electrode, operating an arc with an arc
current and vaporizing material from the target that is deposited
at least partially and intermittently onto the work pieces,
wherein a second electrode that is embodied as a work piece
holder, together with the work pieces, constitutes a bias
electrode;
using a voltage supply, applying a bias voltage to the bias
electrode, with the bias voltage applied so that the bias voltage
is matched to the arc current such that essentially, no net
material buildup on the surface occurs,
wherein the first electrode is operated with a pulsed
current; and
the pulsation results in an increased substrate current
through the work piece surface as compared to non-pulsed
operation and as a result, with a lower bias voltage in
2
Appeal2016-004590
Application 13/130,050
comparison to non-pulsed operation of the first electrode, no
net material buildup on the surface occurs.
Appeal Br. 11.
REJECTION
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejection:
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Schmidt-Mauer2 and Ramm. 3
Final Act. 3.
DISCUSSION
Appellants argue for reversal of the rejection of claims 1-17 as a
group. We, therefore, select claim 1 as representative of the claimed subject
to this rejection. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claims 2-17 will stand or fall
with claim 1.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that Schmidt-Mauer
describes or suggests each element of claim 1 except for the operation of the
first electrode with a pulsed current such that the pulsation results in an
increased substrate current through the work piece surface as compared to
2 DE 42 38 784 Cl, published January 20, 1994. Although Dr. Jorg Vetter is
the first-named inventor on this reference, to avoid confusion we shall
continue to refer to it as "Schmidt-Mauer." Because this is a German-
language document, we rely upon the machine translation entered into the
record on May 6, 2014.
3 WO 2006/099760 A2, published September 28, 2006. This is a German-
language document. Without objection from Appellants, we join the
Examiner in using US 2008/0173536 Al, published July 24, 2008 as the
English-language counterpart.
3
Appeal2016-004590
Application 13/130,050
non-pulsed operation and as a result with a lower bias voltage in comparison
to non-pulsed operation the first electrode no net material buildup on the
surface occurs. Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner also found that Ramm
describes applying a pulsed current to the first electrode. Id. at 4. The
Examiner further found that
Id.
Schmidt-Mauer et al. suggest controlling the bias voltage so
that no net material builds up. One of ordinary skill in the art
would therefore control the substrate bias voltage with respect
to the current applied to the target as suggested by Schmidt-
Mauer et al. because no net material build up is desired.
Application of pulsed current to a target reduces splatter as
taught by Ramm et al. and one of ordinary skill in the art would
apply pulsed voltage in Schmidt-Mauer et al. as taught by
Ramm et al. because reduction of target splatter is desired in arc
vapor deposition.
Appellants argue that the rejection should be reversed because
Schmidt-Mauer and Ramm are concerned with two entirely different
problems and, thus, teach away from each other. Appeal Br. 6-9. For the
following reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 1-17.
According to Appellants, Schmidt-Mauer describes a method of
enhancing corrosion resistance of low alloy steels using arc evaporation in a
vacuum. Id. at 6. In Schmidt-Mauer's method, ion bombardment is used to
clean the surface of the steel, and then chromium-ion bombardment results
in diffusion of the chromium ions into the steel without any growth of the
chromium layer at the steel's surface.
Ramm, on the other hand, describes a method for surface-treating
work pieces using an arc evaporation source. Ramm, Abstract. In
particular, Ramm describes pretreating the substrates under a vacuum with
an argon-hydrogen plasma, etching the surface, depositing a chromium
4
Appeal2016-004590
Application 13/130,050
nitride intermediate layer and then depositing a protective layer. E.g.,
id. i-fi-171-105. Exemplary protective layers include aluminum-chromium-
oxide, aluminum oxide, and zirconium dioxide. Id. i-fi-171, 106, 120.
Appellants argue that Schmidt-Mauer and Ramm teach away from
each other because Schmidt-Mauer avoids depositing a layer on the surface
of the work piece while Ramm seeks to deposit a layer on the surface of the
work piece. Appeal Br. 7 ("Thus, the Schmidt-Mauer et al. reference
teaches away from methods that result in a material buildup in a
cleaning step.").
Appellants' argument is premised, in part, upon the assertion that "the
pulsing in Ramm et al. is only made and disclosed for the intentional
buildup of a layer of material. The intentional buildup of a layer of material
is in direct contrast with both the teachings of Schmidt-Mauer et al. and
Appellants' claimed invention." Id.
Appellants' argument is not persuasive because Ramm describes the
application of pulsed power to the work piece during cleaning steps. For
example Ramm states that during plasma cleaning "a supply is preferably
place[] between the substrates [and] ground or another reference potential,
with which the substrates can be acted upon with DC (preferably positive) or
DC [] (unipolar, bipolar) or as if IF or RF." Ramm i183.
Appellants further argue that Schmidt-Mauer and Ramm teach away
from each other because Schmidt-Mauer describes the use of high substrate
temperatures to avoid the growth of chromium layers on the work piece
surface while Ramm lowers the substrate surface temperature to avoid
introducing stress in the deposited layer. Appeal Br. 7-8.
This argument also is not persuasive. Ramm describes a preferred
variant of its invention in which "the single pulsed power supply (16) is
5
Appeal2016-004590
Application 13/130,050
connected between the first electrode ( 5 ') of the arc evaporator source ( 5)
and the second electrode implemented as work piece holder (3) .... This
operation is primarily of interest if the critical issue is to dissociate reactive
gases in the proximity of the substrate surface and simultaneously to realize
high substrate temperatures." Id. i-f 48. Ramm, therefore, teaches that one
can used pulsed power to achieve high substrate temperatures.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 1-17 of
the '050 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
6