ELEMENT SIX TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 17, 2022

2020006283 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2022)

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. 14/646,293 05/20/2015 Charles Simon James Pickles 058116-0945559 5202 23370 7590 03/17/2022 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP - East Coast MAILSTOP: IP DOCKETING - 22 1100 PEACHTREE STREET SUITE 2800 ATLANTA, GA 30309 EXAMINER TUROCY, DAVID P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1718 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/17/2022 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): KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte CHARLES SIMON JAMES PICKLES, CHRISTOPHER WORT, JOHN BRANDON, and NEIL PERKINS ____________ Appeal 2020-006283 Application 14/646,293 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before GEORGE C. BEST, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Element Six Technologies Ltd. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-006283 Application 14/646,293 2 BACKGROUND The invention relates to diamond coating of substrates using microwave chemical deposition. Spec. 1. According to the Specification, conventional microwave plasma coating techniques suffer from electric field variation at external and internal corners of a work-piece to be coated, leading to non-uniform coating quality and thickness. Id. The described invention involves providing conductive refractory guards configured to define a microwave electric field focal point such that a plasma is sustained above a region in which a work-piece is placed. Id. at 4. Consequently, indirect plasma growth of a desired work-piece coating is achieved. Id. at 5. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim and reads as follows: 1. A method of coating a plurality of non-planar substrate with synthetic diamond material using a microwave plasma chemical vapour deposition (CVD) synthesis technique, the method comprising: forming a composite substrate assembly comprising: a support substrate comprising an upper surface; a plurality of electrically conductive refractory guards disposed over the upper surface of the support substrate and extending to a height hg above the upper surface of the support substrate; and a plurality of non-planar substrates disposed over the upper surface of the support substrate and extending to a height hs above the upper surface of the support substrate, wherein the height hs is less than the height hg, wherein a difference in height hg - hs lies in a range 0.2 mm to 10 mm; placing the composite substrate assembly within a plasma chamber of a microwave plasma CVD reactor; feeding process gases into the plasma chamber including a carbon containing gas and a hydrogen containing gas; feeding microwaves in the plasma chamber to form a microwave plasma at a location over the composite substrate assembly, wherein the electrically conductive refractory guards are configured to provide a defined focal point for the Appeal 2020-006283 Application 14/646,293 3 microwave electric field such that the microwave plasma of suitable intensity is sustained in a stable manner above the plurality of non-planar substrates; and growing synthetic diamond material on the plurality of non-planar substrates, wherein each of the non-planar substrates comprises a convex dome with an integrally formed peripheral skirt, wherein the peripheral skirt is substantially cylindrical and extends downward from an edge of the convex dome and the synthetic diamond material is disposed over the entire surface of the convex dome and extends down at least a portion of the peripheral skirt, and wherein the plurality of non-planar substrates are removed from the synthetic diamond material after growth to yield plurality of free-standing non-planar polycrystalline CVD synthetic diamond components. Appeal Br. 21-22 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added to highlight a key recitation in dispute). REJECTIONS I. Claims 1-4, 7, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Soderberg,2 Kurihara,3 and Sato.4 II. Claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Soderberg, Kurihara, Sato, and Scarsbrook.5 III. Claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Soderberg, Kurihara, Sato, and Yoshihiro.6 2 EP 0528778 A1, published February 24, 1993. 3 US 6,248,400 B1, issued June 19, 2001. 4 JP 59-055700 A, published March 30, 1984, as translated. 5 GB 2486783 A, published June 27, 2012. 6 JP 2004-244298 A, published September 2, 2004, as translated. Appeal 2020-006283 Application 14/646,293 4 OPINION 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). 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 or the inferences and creative steps a person of ordinary skill in the art would have employed. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Independent claim 1 includes providing “a defined focal point for the microwave electric field such that the microwave plasma of suitable intensity is sustained in a stable manner above the plurality of non-planar substrates.” Maintaining the plasma above the substrates achieves indirect plasma growth of the deposition coating because substrates are not in direct contact with the plasma. Spec. 4-5. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Soderberg discloses a microwave plasma CVD reactor including metallic wires or rods disposed over a support surface (Final Act. 5), and finds Soderberg’s wires or rods are configured to sustain a plasma above a plurality of substrates to be coated (id. at 6). Appellant argues, inter alia, Soderberg’s wires or rods are configured to serve as antenna structures which operate to focus plasma onto the substrates, rather than hold the plasma above the substrates. Appeal Br. 12. Appeal 2020-006283 Application 14/646,293 5 Soderberg teaches that conventional microwave plasma diamond deposition performed on a flat support table is problematic because the excited gas generally is spherical in shape, which causes “radial variation in deposition conditions due to the variation in distance between the plasma and the table.” Soderberg 2. To address this problem, Soderberg discloses a bowl-shaped support table to achieve “a constant distance and intensity between the outer surface of the plasma and the inner surface of the table.” Id. According to Soderberg, “[f]urther improvement in the control of the plasma and enhanced deposition rates is obtained according to the invention by placing auxiliary antennas and/or shaping the upper rim of the bowl so that direct coupling between the plasma and the substrate table occurs.” Id. Under such direct coupling, according to Soderberg, “[t]he plasma spreads itself over the substrate table in direct contact with the components which are to be coated.” Id. at 3 (emphasis added). As the foregoing disclosures demonstrate, Soderberg’s objective- whether by providing wires or shaping the upper rim of the bowl-was to directly couple generated plasma to the support surface on which items to be coated are placed. These teachings are contrary to the Examiner’s finding that Soderberg teaches configuring wires to sustain a plasma above articles to be coated. The Examiner’s reliance on the remaining references does not resolve the above-mentioned deficiency. The Examiner refers to Kurihara and Sato for evidence concerning other features recited in claim 1 that are not related to configuration of refractory guards or maintaining a plasma above work pieces to be coated. See Final Act. 7-12. Each of Scarsbrook and Yoshihiro is cited as evidence of providing refractory guards to stabilize a plasma Appeal 2020-006283 Application 14/646,293 6 above a surface to be coated. Final Act. 13, 20. In each instance, the Examiner determines it would have been obvious, in light of either Scarsbrook or Yoshihiro, to reconfigure Soderberg’s wires such that in use a plasma is sustained a distance above the surface of a substrate to be coated. Id. 14-15, 20. However, the Examiner provides no reasoning how such a modification could have been made to Soderberg without defeating Soderberg’s stated objective of achieving direct coupling between the generated plasma and the substrate table. For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded the Examiner does not identify evidence of record sufficient to support the finding that Soderberg discloses the recited refractory guard configuration so as to sustain a plasma above a surface to be coated, or that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify Soderberg to achieve such a configuration. Accordingly, the Examiner’s rejections are not sustained. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11-13 is reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-4, 7, 13 103(a) Soderberg, Kurihara, Sato 1-4, 7, 13 1-5, 7-9, 11-13 103(a) Soderberg, Kurihara, Sato, Scarsbrook 1-5, 7-9, 11-13 Appeal 2020-006283 Application 14/646,293 7 1-5, 7-9, 11-13 103(a) Soderberg, Kurihara, Sato, Yoshihiro 1-5, 7-9, 11-13 Overall Outcome 1-5, 7-9, 11-13 REVERSED