Ex Parte Hilkene et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2018

12939713 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/939,713 11/04/2010 Martin A. Hilkene
44257 7590 08/02/2018
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP- -Applied Materials
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
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.
014593/ATG/ATG/ESONG 5931
EXAMINER
DAGENAIS-ENGLEHAR, KRISTEN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1717
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2018 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):
Pair_Eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARTIN A. HILKENE, MATTHEW D. SCOTNEY-CASTLE,
ROMAN GOUK, and STEVEN VERRA VERBEKE
Appeal2017-008082
Application 12/939,713
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, JENNIFERR. GUPTA,
and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5, 6, 9-13, 20, and 21 of Application
12/939,713 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Non-Final Act. (July 30, 2015) 2-11.
Appellants 1 seek reversal of the rejection pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the rejection predicated
on 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
1 Applied Materials, Inc., is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal2017-008082
Application 12/939,713
BACKGROUND
The present application generally relates to hard-disk drive (HDD)
media, and apparatus and methods for making hard-disk drive media.
Spec. ,r 2. More specifically, the application describes a method of forming
a patterned magnetic disc medium for a hard-disk drive. Id.
Independent claims 1 and 11 are reproduced below:
1. A method of forming a pattern of magnetic domains on a
magnetically susceptible material disposed on a substrate,
compnsmg:
exposing a first portion of a magnetically susceptible
layer to a plasma formed from a gas mixture to modify a
magnetic property of the first portion of the magnetically
susceptible layer exposed through a mask layer from a first state
to a second state, wherein the gas mixture includes at least a
BF 3 gas and a B2H6 gas, and wherein the plasma is generated by
an ion energy less than 5 ke V, and the magnetically susceptible
layer includes a first layer of iron or alloys thereof disposed on
a second layer selected from a group consisting of chromium,
cobalt, platinum or combinations thereof, wherein the first layer
has magnetic coercivity higher than the second layer.
11. A method of forming a magnetic medium for a hard disk
drive, comprising:
transferring a substrate having a magnetically susceptible
layer and a patterned mask layer disposed on the magnetically
susceptible layer into a processing chamber, wherein the
patterned mask layer defines a first region unprotected by the
mask layer and a second region protected by the mask layer and
the magnetically susceptible layer includes a ferromagnetic
material; and
modifying a magnetic property of the first portion of the
magnetically susceptible layer unprotected by the mask layer in
the processing chamber, wherein modifying the magnetic
property of the first portion of the magnetically susceptible
layer further comprises:
2
Appeal2017-008082
Application 12/939,713
supplying a gas mixture into the processing
chamber, wherein the gas mixture includes at least a BF3 gas
and a B2Hs gas;
applying a RF power to the gas mixture to
dissociate the gas mixture into reactive ions to form a plasma in
the gas mixture, wherein the RF power is controlled to generate
an ion energy less than 5 keV; and
implanting boron ions dissociated from the gas
mixture into the first region of the magnetically susceptible
layer while forming a protection layer on the substrate surface,
wherein the magnetically susceptible layer includes a first layer
of iron or alloys thereof disposed on a second layer selected
from a group consisting of chromium, cobalt, platinum or
combinations thereof, wherein the first layer has magnetic
coercivity higher than the second layer.
Resp. to Notice of Non-Compliant Appeal Br. 3, 4 (Claims App.).
REJECTION
The Examiner maintains the following rejection:
1. Claims 1, 5, 6, 9-13, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Giridhar et al. 2 in view ofHanawa et al. 3
and Rou et al. 4 Non-Final Act. 2-11.
2 US 2009/0201722 Al, published Aug. 13, 2009.
3 EP 1 593 753 A2, published Nov. 9, 2005.
4 US 2008/0055777 Al, published Mar. 6, 2008.
3
Appeal2017-008082
Application 12/939,713
DISCUSSION
The Examiner found the claims at issue to be obvious over Giridhar,
Hanawa, and Rou. Non-Final Act. 2-11. The Examiner determined that
Giridhar teaches plasma treatment of a magnetically susceptible layer. Id. at
3. The Examiner further found that Giridhar teaches "that the ions that can
be readily implanted from a plasma include boron." Id. at 4 ( citing Giridhar
,r 38). The Examiner further found that Hanawa teaches that BF3 and B2H6
may be used for boron ion implantation. Id. at 4. The Examiner determined
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use
BF 3 and B2H6 because Hanawa teaches the mixed gas minimizes the
implantation of undesired species into the workpiece and gives BF3 and
B2H6 as an example of such an advantageous mixture for the deposition of
boron.
The Examiner additionally found that Rou teaches a "magnetically
soft underlayer, i.e. the second layer," which may be made of a cobalt-
containing alloy. Id. at 5 ( citing Rou ,r 9). The Examiner determined that
one of skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the second
(lower) layer of Rou "because ROU teaches that such a second layer serves
to guide the magnetic flux emanating from the head through the
magnetically hard perpendicular recording layer." Id. at 5.
Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
combined the teachings of the cited references because of the technical
differences between the references. Specifically, Hanawa teaches to use an
ion implantation process to implant ions while forming a dielectric layer
rather than a magnetically susceptible layer. Appeal Br. 13.
4
Appeal2017-008082
Application 12/939,713
Appellants additionally argue that the cited references fail to teach the
"protection layer" of claim 11. Appeal Br. 14--16. The Specification
describes the protection layer as follows:
The hydrogen active species provided by the hydrogen
containing gas supplied in the gas mixture may assist repairing
dangling bonds formed by the attack of the fluorine active
species, thereby assisting smoothing of the surface of the
implanted regions 316 unprotected by the mask layer 310.
Therefore, the hydrogen containing gas supplied during the
plasma immersion ion implantation process may efficiently
provide a thin layer of protection layer on the substrate
surface, thereby assisting implanting ions into the substrate
without adversely changing or damaging the topography of the
substrate surface.
Spec. ,r 35 (emphasis added).
The Examiner found that the BF 3 and B2H6 mixture dissociates to
form a plasma, thus, hydrogen ions and fluorine ( among other species) are
formed by dissociation. Answer 4. The Examiner determined that the
formation of hydrogen and fluorine species on the surface is a "side effect"
of the use of the hydrogen and fluorine gas source in ion implantation
processes. Final Act. 6; Answer 5. Interaction of hydrogen with the
substrate forms the claimed "protection layer."
Appellants' arguments do not show error in the findings of record.
The Examiner relies on Hanawa's teaching that BF3 and B2H6 gases may be
used in an ion implantation process and such gases minimize the
implantation of undesired chemical species. Hanawa indicates that this is
one of several known ways to effect boron ion implantation. Appellants
provide no tangible reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
viewed such technique as inappropriate for implanting boron in a
magnetically susceptible substrate (as taught by Giridhar). Moreover,
5
Appeal2017-008082
Application 12/939,713
Appellants' arguments are generally unsupported by factual evidence.
Attorney argument is not evidence. See, e.g., In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399,
1405 (CCPA 1974).
Similarly, we discern no error in the Examiner's finding that the
protection layer is taught by the combination of Giridhar and Hanawa.
Appellants argue that Hanawa lacks an explicit teaching of a protection layer
and that the technical features of Hanawa differ from those of the claimed
method. An explicit teaching is not necessary where the feature at issue (the
protection layer) arises as a consequence of following the teachings of the
cited prior art. See Ex Parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (BPAI 1985) ("The
fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow
naturally from following the suggestions of the prior art cannot be the basis
for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious.").
Further, as above, Appellants' arguments regarding technical incompatibility
rest on attorney argument.
In addition, we adopt the analysis of the Examiner as set forth in the
Non-Final Office Action and the Examiner's Answer.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 9-13, 20, and 21 as obvious over
Giridhar, Hanawa, and Rou is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
6