NCC NANO, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 1, 2021

2020002162 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
15/072,180 03/16/2016 ROB JACOB HENDRIKS NCC.001015 1324
124676 7590 03/01/2021
Russell Ng PLLC
8729 Shoal Creek Blvd., Suite 100
Austin, TX 78757
EXAMINER
HORNING, JOEL G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1712
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2021 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):
stephanie@russellnglaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROB JACOB HENDRIKS, KURT A. SCHRODER, and
CHARLES C. MUNSON
Appeal 2020-002162
Application 15/072,180
Technology Center 1700
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s June 10, 2019 decision to finally reject claims 1–20 (“Final
Act.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Novacentrix Corporation (Appeal Br. 3).
Appeal 2020-002162
Application 15/072,180

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure is directed to a method for depositing a
functional material on a substrate (Abstract). An optically transparent plate
having a first surface and a second surface with one or more wells is
provided (id.). After coating the second surface with a thin layer of light-
absorbing material, the wells are filled with a functional material (id.). The
plate is then irradiated with light, heating the layer of light-absorbing
material and generating gas at an interface between the layer of light-
absorbing material and the functional material to release the functional
material from the wells onto a receiving substrate located adjacent to the
plate (id.). Independent claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for depositing a functional material on a substrate,
said method comprising:
providing a plate having a first surface and a second
surface;
removing materials from said second surface to form a
first well within said second surface;
coating said second surface of said plate and said first
well within said second surface of said plate with a layer of
light-absorbing material such that said layer of light-absorbing
material is in complete contact with an entire surface of said
first well formed by only said plate;
filling said first well within said second surface of said
plate with a functional material after said coating of said light-
absorbing material layer; and
irradiating said plate with a pulsed light from a non-
collimated light source to heat said light-absorbing material in
order to generate gas at an interface between said light-
absorbing material and said functional material to release said
functional material from said first well onto a receiving
substrate.
Appeal 2020-002162
Application 15/072,180

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Foley et al. US 5,156,938 October 20, 1992
Seo et al. US 2010/0015424 A1 January 21, 2010
Aoyama et al. US 2012/0251772 A1 October 4, 2012
Meinders et al. EP 2 660 352 A1 November 6, 2013
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–5, 7–15, and 17–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Aoyama in view of Meinders.
2. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Aoyama in view of Meinders, and further in view of Foley.
3. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Aoyama in view of Meinders, and further in view of Seo.
DISCUSSION
Appellant makes several arguments seeking reversal of the rejection
(see, Appeal Br. 6–7). Appellant makes specific arguments for claims 1, 9,
18, and 19. We address each of these arguments in turn. The remaining
claims are not argued separately, and will stand or fall with the claims from
which they depend.
Claim 1. Appellant argues that, contrary to the Examiner’s findings,
Aoyama does not teach a step of “irradiating said plate with a pulsed light
from a non-collimated light source to heat said light-absorbing material in
order to generate gas at an interface between said light-absorbing material
and said functional material to release said functional material from said
well onto a receiving substrate” (Appeal Br. 6, emphasis added). Appellant
contends that Aoyama specifically teaches the use of a collimated light
Appeal 2020-002162
Application 15/072,180

4
source (id., citing Aoyama, FIG. 8, ¶ 163). Appellant points to Aoyama’s
Figure 8 and the accompanying disclosure as teaching the use of a
collimated laser beam (id.). This argument is not persuasive, however,
because, as found by the Examiner (Ans. 3), while Figure 8 and ¶ 163
discuss the use of a collimated laser in a specific embodiment of Aoyama’s
system, Aoyama also discloses the use of a discharge lamp as the light
source (see, Aoyama, ¶ 77). There is no reference in the discussion of the
discharge lamp to collimating its light. Therefore, the Examiner finds that
this would have suggested to a person of skill in the art the use of non-
collimated light (Ans. 3).
Appellant does not persuasively challenge this finding, which is
amply supported by the evidence of record. For example, because Aoyama
does disclose the possibility of collimating laser light, but is silent as to the
need or possibility of collimating light from a discharge lamp, a person of
skill in the art would not have understood the discharge lamp to be providing
collimated light, because doing so would entail additional components and
complications. Moreover, as explained by the Examiner, a discharge lamp
can be used without the need for an optical system in order to process large
substrates, while the laser light does need such a system, which in this case
includes a device for collimating the laser light.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 9. Claim 9 recites a step of “applying a reflective layer on said
second surface of said plate.” Appellant contends that the Examiner has not
demonstrated that Aoyama discloses this step. In particular, Appellant
argues that because the Examiner finds that reflective layer 103 is used to
produce the well structure, it cannot simultaneously serve as the claimed
Appeal 2020-002162
Application 15/072,180

5
reflective layer (Appeal Br. 6). This argument is not persuasive essentially
for the reasons articulated by the Examiner. The rejection of claim 9 relies
on Meinders to suggest etching a well in the second surface, while
Aoyama’s disclosure then teaches the deposition of reflective layer 103. In
essence, Appellant’s argument does not account for what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to a person of skill in the
art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Appellant further contends that the findings set forth by the Examiner
in the Answer – that Meinders’s trenches correspond to the claimed well –
mean that Aoyama does not disclose coating the second surface of the plate
and well with a light absorbing material that is in complete contact with an
entire surface of the first well formed by only the plate (Reply Br. 3).
However, Appellant does not provide any explanation of why this is so and,
therefore, fails to demonstrate reversible error in the rejection. It is unclear
if Appellant’s position is that applying the light absorbing material on top of
the claimed reflective layer means that the light absorbing material is not in
complete contact with an entire surface of the first well. However, Aoyama
specifically discloses that the reflective layer is not in the body of the well
(see FIG. 1A, layer 103) (i.e. the light absorbing layer is in complete contact
with an entire surface of the well).
Accordingly, we do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive of
reversible error in the rejection of claim 9.
Claims 18 and 19. Claim 18 recites that the second surface is curved.
The Examiner finds that Meinders’s FIG. 5C discloses that the trench can
have a depth with sinusoidal (i.e. curved) depth variations (Ans. 4–5). The
Examiner finds that once the sinusoidally shaped trenches are etched, the
Appeal 2020-002162
Application 15/072,180

6
second surface is curved (id.). However, as suggested by Appellant, the
claimed wells (trenches) are a different feature than the second surface.
Therefore, even if a curved well were suggested by Meinders, that does not
mean that a curved second surface is also suggested.
The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case
of obviousness based on an inherent or explicit disclosure of the claimed
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the
prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability.”). To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the
Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described
or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on the
knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In this instance, the evidence of record does not
support the Examiner’s determination that the applied prior art teaches or
suggests a curved second surface, or that this feature would have been
obvious to the ordinary artisan. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of
claim 18. Because claims 19 and 20 depend from claim 18, we also reverse
the rejection of those claims.

Appeal 2020-002162
Application 15/072,180

7
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7–15,
17–20
103 Aoyama, Meinders 1–5, 7–15,
17
18–20
6 103 Aoyama, Meinders,
Foley
6
16 103 Aoyama, Meinders,
Seo
16
Overall
Outcome
1–17 18–20
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. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART