Ex Parte MILLER

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 25, 2018

14458334 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/458,334 08/13/2014
55649 7590 09/27/2018
Moser Taboada/ Applied Materials, Inc.
1030 Broad Street
Suite 203
Shrewsbury, NJ 07702
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
KEITH A. MILLER
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.
20348USA 7439
EXAMINER
BAND, MICHAEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1794
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 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):
ataboada@mtiplaw.com
docketing@mtiplaw.com
llinardakis@mtiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEITH A. MILLER
Appeal2017-010361
Application 14/458,334
Technology Center 1700
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, GEORGE C. BEST, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1-5, 7-18, 21, and 22. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appellant's invention is directed to magnetron assemblies used to
deposit "ionized metals from a target in the fabrication of semiconductor
integrated circuits" (Spec. ,r,r 3, 5). The Specification describes
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Applied Materials, Inc.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-010361
Application 14/458,334
embodiments of magnetron assemblies said to provide improved control
from the center of the target to the target's edge. Id. at 4--5.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A magnetron assembly for providing a magnetic field
within a process chamber, comprising:
an inner rotating mechanism including a first plate
having a central axis, wherein the first plate includes a first pair
of two magnet tracks disposed proximate a center portion of the
first plate, and a second single magnet track disposed about a
peripheral edge of the first plate, wherein each of the first pair
of two magnet tracks and the second single magnet track
includes a plurality of magnets, and wherein the first plate is
rotatable about the central axis; and
an outer lifting mechanism including a ring disposed
proximate the first plate, the ring having a single magnet track
including a second plurality of magnets coupled to a bottom
surface of the ring proximate a peripheral edge of the ring,
wherein the ring is movable in a direction perpendicular to the
first plate, wherein a polarity of each magnet within each
individual magnet track is the same, and wherein a polarity
between the two magnet tracks in the first pair of two magnet
tracks is opposite.
Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-5, 7-18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
failing to point out and particularly claim the subject matter applicant
regards as the invention.
2. Claims 1-3, 8, 9, 11-18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Mizuno (US 8,956,512 B2, issued Feb. 17, 2015,
"Mizuno"). 2
2 We note the Examiner's statement of rejection (2) includes claim 19. Ans.
4. We, however, view this as a clerical error because claim 19 has been
cancelled. See Amendment 5, 6, filed November 11, 2015.
2
Appeal 2017-010361
Application 14/458,334
3. Claims 4, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Mizuno and further in view of Newcomb et al. (US 6,372,098
Bl, issued Apr. 16, 2002, "Newcomb").
4. Claim 103 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Mizuno and further in view of Takahashi et al. (JP 2001-107228,
published Apr. 17, 2001, and relying on a machine translation dated
Mar. 5, 2016, "Takahashi").
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
Rejection (1 ): 35 U.S.C. § 112(b ), Indefiniteness
The Examiner determines that the limitation "each individual magnet
track" recited in claims 1 and 15 is indefinite (Final Act. 4). The Examiner
concludes that it is unclear "as to whether 'each individual magnet track' is
referring to only the first pair of magnet tracks, one track of the first pair and
the second single magnet track, or all of the first pair of magnet tracks and
the second single magnet track." Id. at 2.
Appellant responds by arguing that "claim 1 clearly and explicitly
recites that within each individual magnet track, the polarity of each magnet
in the magnet track is the same" (Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis added)). Appellant
further argues that the meaning of the claim limitation is made clear because
the "Specification and the claims reasonably apprise those skilled in the art
that the polarity of magnets within a single given magnet track is the same,
while the polarity between pairs of magnetic tracks is opposite." Id. at 7.
3 The Examiner indicated that claim 8 was rejected (Ans. 8). Appellant's
remarks in the Appeal Brief at page 17 demonstrate awareness of the
mistake. Accordingly, we find the Examiner's mistake to be harmless error.
3
Appeal 2017-010361
Application 14/458,334
Whether a claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) requires giving
the claims the broadest reasonable interpretation and then determining
whether the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are unclear. In re
Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Board has explained
that "[t]he Office 'determines the scope of claims ... not solely on the basis
of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable
construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art."' Ex parte McAward, No. 2015-006416, 2017 WL
3669566, at *2 (PTAB August 25, 2017) (precedential in relevant part)
(alteration in original) (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane).
In this case, Appellant's Figures 2A and 2B in the Specification depict
four distinct magnet tracks, i.e., single magnet track 214, second single
magnet track 212, and a first pair of two magnet tracks 208, 210. The
Specification describes,
[t]he polar orientation, or polarity (e.g., north or south), within
a given track in any pair of open loop magnetic poles is the
same ( e.g., the magnets within a given open loop magnetic pole
track have a common polar orientation), but the polarity
between pairs of magnetic tracks is opposite (e.g., inner north
and outer south or inner south and outer north).
Spec. ,r 58 (emphasis added). Thus, the Specification describes that
although each magnets within magnet track 208 may have a north polarity,
each magnet within its paired magnet track 210 must have the opposite
polarity, i.e., a south polarity.
Accordingly, the claims are clear that the polarity of each magnet
within each of the four individual magnet tracks is the same based on the
figures and descriptions provided in the Specification. We conclude that the
4
Appeal 2017-010361
Application 14/458,334
rejected claims meet the necessary thresholds of clarity and precision when
read through the eyes of a skilled artisan and in view of this disclosure. We,
therefore, reverse Rejection (1) under§ 112(b ).
Rejections (2}-(4): 35 U.S.C. § 103
Appellant's arguments for reversal of rejection (2) of the independent
claims as obvious focus on limitations recited in claims 1 and 15 (Appeal Br.
8-11; Reply Br. 5-7). We select claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellant argues, inter alia, that Mizuno fails to teach or suggest the
limitations recited in claim 1 requiring that: (i) "a polarity of each magnet
within each individual magnet track is the same," and (ii) "a polarity
between the two magnet tracks in the first pair of two magnet tracks is
opposite" (Appeal Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 5-7). Appellant further argues that the
Examiner reversibly erred in finding that Mizuno discloses or suggests the
limitations in dispute because these findings are based on a "legally
incorrect" construction of claim 1 (Appeal Br. 10).
The Examiner responds by finding that the Specification's ,r 58
"provides the only teaching for this claimed polarity" (Ans. 10). The
Examiner further finds that the Specification's "figures do not particularly
teach or show that each magnet in each magnet track must have only either a
Nor S pole as argued." Id. According to the Examiner, because claim 1
"only requires '!! polarity of each magnet[,'] ... the claim can be reasonably
interpreted to encompass a magnet having two polarities so long as one of
the polarities meets the claim." Id.
During prosecution, the PTO gives the language of the proposed
claims "the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
5
Appeal 2017-010361
Application 14/458,334
usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking
into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that
may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant's
specification." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054--55 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
As set forth above, Appellant describes in their Specification that the
magnetron assembly embodiments place magnets in each open loop
magnetic pole track in either of two orientations, "north or south" (Spec. 58).
The Specification further discloses that examples of the requisite opposite
polarity between pairs of magnetic tracks are either "inner north and outer
south or inner south and outer north." Id. (emphasis added).
On the other hand, the Examiner does not direct us to any binding
authority supporting the position that Figures in the Specification must
depict that each magnet within each individual magnet track is either in the
north or south orientation. Thus, we determine that the Examiner's
interpretation of claim 1 as encompassing open loop magnetic pole tracks in
which each magnet possesses a north and south orientation to be
unreasonably broad.
Accordingly, we construe the phrase "a polarity of each magnet
within each individual magnet track is the same," as requiring that each of
these magnets be in either the north orientation or the south orientation.
Likewise, we construe the phrase "wherein a polarity between the two
magnet tracks in the first pair of two magnet tracks is opposite," as requiring
that the claimed polarity is either in an inner north and outer south
orientation or an inner south and outer north orientation.
Mizuno does not disclose or suggest that a polarity of each magnet
within each individual magnet track is in either of two orientations, i.e., as
either north or south (Mizuno Figs. 2, 10). Rather, these figures depict
6
Appeal 2017-010361
Application 14/458,334
bipolar members Sb of the magnet array 54 in north and south orientations.
As Appellant correctly argues, "the polarity between the two magnet tracks
53 and 54 in the first pair of two magnet tracks in Mizuno is not opposite of
each other" because "the third main ring-shaped magnet array 53 includes all
North pole members and the second auxiliary ring-shaped magnet array 54
also includes North pole members." Id. at 9. (Emphasis added).
Therefore, Mizuno's Figures that depict bipolar members Sb: (i) in
north and south pole orientations and (ii) in tracks in inner north and outer
north orientations cannot reasonably disclose or suggest the disputed
limitations (see Mizuno Figs. 2, 10). Because we find that Mizuno does not
teach the disputed limitations within the meaning of the claims, we reverse
rejection (2) to claims 1 and 15, and, therefore, the obviousness rejections
(3) and (4) of the remaining claims. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
7