The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
`written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
`
`Paper No. 21
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
`AND INTERFERENCES
`_____________
`Ex parte ZORAN KRIVOKAPIC
`_____________
`Appeal No. 1998-2649
`Application No. 08/616,990
`______________
`ON BRIEF
`_______________
`
`Before KIMLIN, GARRIS, and PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent
`Judges.
`GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`DECISION ON APPEAL
`This is a decision on an appeal from the final rejection
`of claims 1-29, which are all of the claims in the
`application.
`The subject matter on appeal relates to a plasma
`sputtering apparatus and method which includes a first and
`second wafer support located at the lower and upper ends
`respectively of a chamber, a coil of conductive material
`
` Progressive Exhibit 2007
`Liberty Mutual v. Progressive
`CBM2012-00002
`
`
`written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
`
`Paper No. 21
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
`AND INTERFERENCES
`_____________
`Ex parte ZORAN KRIVOKAPIC
`_____________
`Appeal No. 1998-2649
`Application No. 08/616,990
`______________
`ON BRIEF
`_______________
`
`Before KIMLIN, GARRIS, and PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent
`Judges.
`GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`DECISION ON APPEAL
`This is a decision on an appeal from the final rejection
`of claims 1-29, which are all of the claims in the
`application.
`The subject matter on appeal relates to a plasma
`sputtering apparatus and method which includes a first and
`second wafer support located at the lower and upper ends
`respectively of a chamber, a coil of conductive material
`
` Progressive Exhibit 2007
`Liberty Mutual v. Progressive
`CBM2012-00002
`
`
`
`Appeal No. 1998-2649
`Application No. 08/616,990
`
`disposed between these supports, and a target support
`positioned between the vertical side surface of the chamber
`and the coil. This appealed subject matter is adequately
`illustrated by independent claim 1 which reads as follows:
`1. A plasma sputtering apparatus comprising:
`a chamber having an upper end, a lower end, and a
`vertical side surface connecting the upper and lower
`ends;
`a first wafer support located at the lower end of
`the chamber;
`a second wafer support located at the upper end of
`the chamber;
`a coil of conductive material disposed between the
`first and second wafer supports;
`a target support positioned between the vertical
`side surface and the coil;
`means for applying radio frequency energy to the
`coil; and
`means for applying a radio frequency or direct
`current bias to each wafer support.
`The references set forth below are relied upon by the
`examiner as evidence of obviousness:
`Barnes et al. (Barnes) 5,178,739 Jan. 12,
`1993
`Mosely et al. (Mosely) 5,431,799 Jul. 11,
`1995
`Canon Co., Ltd. (Canon) 64-055379 Mar. 02,
`1989
` (published Japanese Patent Application)
`2
`
`
`
`Appeal No. 1998-2649
`Application No. 08/616,990
`
`Claims 1-11 and 13-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
`103 as being unpatentable over the Canon reference in view of
`Barnes, and claims 12 and 29 stand correspondingly rejected
`over these references and further in view of Mosely.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Appeal No. 1998-2649
`Application No. 08/616,990
`
`We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer
`for a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed
`by the appellant and by the examiner concerning the above-
`noted rejections.
`
`OPINION
`We cannot sustain these rejections for the reasons which
`follow.
`On page 7 of the answer, the examiner expresses his
`obviousness conclusion in the following manner:
` Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`was made to have placed a substrate on a holder
`opposite another substrate on a holder between
`targets supplied with sputtering power as taught by
`Canon and to have provided an apparatus with a
`cylindrical target, rf coil, biased substrate for
`depositing in high aspect ratio holes of a
`semiconductor as taught by Barnes et al. because it
`is desired to deposit films over a large area and in
`aspect ratio holes.
`We share the appellant's basic position that the applied prior
`art contains no teaching or suggestion for combining the
`apparatus of Canon with an RF coil of the type taught by
`Barnes in order to thereby result in an apparatus and a method
`of the type defined by the independent claims on appeal.
`Concerning this matter, page 10 of the answer sets forth the
`
`4
`
`
`
`Appeal No. 1998-2649
`Application No. 08/616,990
`
`examiner's following viewpoint to the contrary:
` In response to the argument that one of
`ordinary skill in the art would not have been
`realistically led to dramatically reconstruct
`Canon's apparatus by providing an RF conductive
`coil, cylindrical target, segmented target, and
`biased substrate, simply because such features are
`employed by Barnes et al. for an entirely different
`objective (i.e.[,] in Barnes the objective is to
`deposit in high aspect ratio openings and in Canon
`the objective is deposit over large areas), it is
`argued that Canon and Barnes et al. objective are
`[sic, is] the same. Specifically, Canon suggest
`filling in fine contact pores (i.e.[,] aspect ratio
`holes) (See Canon translation page 12) and Barnes et
`al. suggest filling in high aspect ratio holes (see
`Barnes et al. Column 4[,] lines 62-64).
`Unlike the examiner, we do not regard the page 12
`disclosure of Canon that "fine contact pores can be fattened"
`as suggesting the filling of high aspect ratio holes of the
`type taught by Barnes (and the appellant). Indeed, we
`perceive merit in the appellant's position that this
`disclosure of Barnes is ambiguous. From our perspective, the
`examiner's interpretation of Canon's aforementioned disclosure
`is based upon conjecture, speculation or assumption, and it is
`well settled that a Section 103 rejection
`must rest on a
`factual basis rather than conjecture, speculation or
`assumption.
`In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173,
`178 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968).
`5
`
`
`
`Appeal No. 1998-2649
`Application No. 08/616,990
`
`In addition to the foregoing, it is appropriate to
`emphasize that the apparatus designs of Canon and Barnes are
`different with respect to, inter alia, the disposition of
`substrates and targets. This is significant because the
`examiner has offered no explanation as to why an artisan with
`ordinary skill would reasonably expect success in providing
`the Canon apparatus design with an RF coil of the type used in
`the Barnes apparatus design. Stated otherwise, it is unclear
`on the record before us whether the advantages of using an RF
`coil in an apparatus design of the type taught by Barnes would
`attend use of such a coil in the different apparatus design of
`Canon. We here remind the examiner that obviousness under
`Section 103 requires both a suggestion to modify and a
`reasonable expectation of success.
`In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d
`894, 903-04, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1680-81 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`6
`
`
`
`Appeal No. 1998-2649
`Application No. 08/616,990
`
`The deficiencies described above are not supplied by the
`additionally applied reference to Mosely. Accordingly, we
`cannot sustain either the Section 103 rejection of claims 1-11
`and 13-28 over Canon in view of Barnes or the corresponding
`rejection of claims 12 and 29 over these references and
`further in view of Mosely.
`The decision of the examiner is reversed.
`
`REVERSED
`
` EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
` Administrative Patent Judge )
` )
` )
` ) BOARD OF PATENT
` BRADLEY R. GARRIS ) APPEALS AND
` Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
` )
` )
` )
` BEVERLY A. PAWLIKOWSKI )
` Administrative Patent Judge )
`
`BRG:hh
`
`7
`
`
`
`Appeal No. 1998-2649
`Application No. 08/616,990
`
`McDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY
`600 13TH STREET, N.W.
`WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
`
`8
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
