Ex Parte Weichart et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 8, 201912329064 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 8, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/329,064 12/05/2008 Juergen Weichart 86378 7590 05/10/2019 Pearne & Gordon LLP 1801 East 9th Street Suite 1200 Cleveland, OH 44114-3108 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. TSW-43106US1 8093 EXAMINER LIN,JAMES ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1794 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/10/2019 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): patdocket@pearne.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte JUERGEN WEICHART, STANISLA V KADLEC, and MOHAMED ELGHAZZALI, Appeal2018-006527 Application 12/329,064 1 Technology Center 1700 Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Primary Examiner's non-final decision to reject claims 15, 16, 18, 19, 21-30, 32, and 33. 2 The subject matter of claim 31 has been allowed. (Non-Final Act. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Evatec Advanced Technologies AG is listed as the real party in interest (Appeal Brief filed February 7, 2018 ("App. Br."), 3). 2 See Appeal Br. 4--5; Reply Brief filed June 6, 2018 ("Reply Br."), 2; Non- Final Office Action entered September 8, 2017 ("Non-Final Act."), 6-10; Examiner's Answer entered April 6, 2018 ("Ans."), 3-8. Appeal2018-006527 Application 12/329,064 I. BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to a method of High Power Impulse Magnetron Sputtering ("HIPIMS") sputter depositing an insulation layer on a substrate (Specification filed December 5, 2008 ("Spec."), ,r 4, Abstract). Representative claim 15 is reproduced from the claims appendix to the Appeal Brief, as follows: 15. A method of High Power Impulse Magnetron Sputtering ("HIPIMS") sputter depositing an insulation layer on a substrate or of manufacturing a substrate with an insulating layer thereon, the method comprising: providing a target formed at least in part from a material to be included in the insulation layer and the substrate in a substantially enclosed chamber defined by a housing; igniting a plasma within the substantially enclosed chamber; providing a magnetic field adjacent to a surface of the target to at least partially contain the plasma adjacent to the surface of the target; increasing a voltage to repeatedly establish high-power electric pulses between a cathode and an anode, wherein an average power of the electric pulses is at least 0.1 kW; controlling an operational parameter to promote the sputter depositing of the insulation layer substantially in a transition mode between a metallic mode and a reactive mode; and reacting the material from the target with a reactive gas within the substantially enclosed chamber to form an insulating material and depositing the insulating material onto the surface of the substrate, wherein controlling the operational parameter to promote the sputter depositing of the insulation layer substantially in the transition mode comprises: maintaining the high-power electric pulses at a constant voltage value; recording an average discharge current of the high-power electric pulses; and 2 Appeal2018-006527 Application 12/329,064 adjusting a duration of the high-power electric pulses in dependency of said average discharge current recorded. (Appeal Br. 19). II. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 15, 18-19, 21-23, 25-26, 28-30, and 32-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Saito (US 2008/0102630 Al, published May 1, 2008) and Ruske (WO 2007/147582, published December 27, 2007). 3 Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Saito, Ruske and Pramanick (US 6,147,404, issued Nov. 14, 2000). Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Saito, Ruske and Martin (US 6,781,180 B 1, issued August 24, 2004). Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Saito, Ruske and Kanaya (US 6,303,958 Bl, issued Oct. 16, 2001 ). III. DISCUSSION The Appellants do not argue any claim separately within the meaning of 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Therefore, pursuant to the rule, we confine 3 The Examiner relies on and references US 2010/0282598 Al as an English language equivalent. 3 Appeal2018-006527 Application 12/329,064 our discussion to independent claims 15 and 29, with claims 16, 18, 19, 21- 28, 30, 32, and 33 standing or falling with claims 15 and 29. The Examiner finds Saito teaches a method of sputter depositing an insulation layer on a substrate that differs from the methods recited in claims 15 and 29 in not including a step of adjusting the duration of the high power electric pulses and frequency of the high power electric pulses in dependency of the average discharge current recorded. (Ans. 3-6; Non- Final Act. 4--7). The Examiner finds Ruske teaches adjusting the operational parameter of pulse duration/frequency/duty cycle in order to maintain the sputtering at a transition mode while controlling average discharge power ( average discharge current/voltage) applied to the target. (Id.). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to have substituted the rapid adjustable high power adjustable pulse frequency/duration method of Ruske, for the process gas control method of Saito, in order to have a simple, rapid, and uncomplicated control of the discharge of a reactive sputtering system in a transition mode as taught by Ruske. (Ans. 4; Non-Final Act. 5---6). Appellants argue Ruske only "adjusts the frequency (i.e., the time from the beginning of one pulse to the beginning of the next pulse) by adjusting the duration of the pauses between the pulses" and Ruske does not disclose adjusting a pulse duration of the high powered electric pulses as required by the claimed invention. (App. Br. 13). Appellants argue Ruske teaches away from the claimed control method because Ruske describes a special type of frequency variation, in which the variation of the frequency is achieved by changing the pauses between the pulses while maintaining the form of the individual discharge pulses (App. Br. 13-14; Ruske, ,r 18). 4 Appeal2018-006527 Application 12/329,064 Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error for the reasons presented by the Examiner. (Ans. 8-14). We add the following. Independent claims 15 and 29 recite the limitation, "adjusting a duration of the high power electric pulses." Corresponding dependent claims 32 and 33 recite, "wherein adjusting the duration of the high power electric pulses includes adjusting the frequency of the pulses or the duty- cycle of the pulses." This recitation in the dependent claims indicates that adjusting the "duration of the higher power electric pulses" ( emphasis added) can be achieved by adjusting the frequency of the pulses or the duty cycle of the pulses. The Examiner properly identified Ruske, ,r 24 as describing varying the frequency of the pulses or the duty cycle of the pulses. Appellants have not directed us to portions of the Specification that provides a specific definition of the language "duration of the electric pulses". The plain language of "duration of the electric pulses" means duration for pulses collectively-absent a scope-limiting description to the contrary. See In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("[T]he PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the Specification.") The claims do not explicitly state the duration for each pulse. For the foregoing reasons and those presented by the Examiner, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness determinations. IV. SUMMARY 5 Appeal2018-006527 Application 12/329,064 The Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 15, 16, 18, 19, 21-30, 32, and 33 are affirmed. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation