Ex Parte Thiel

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 22, 2013

10841986 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/841,986 05/06/2004 James P. Thiel 1935A1 2829 7590 01/22/2013 PPG INDUSTRIES, INC. Intellectual Property Dept. One PPG Place Pittsburgh, PA 15272 EXAMINER BAND, MICHAEL A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1754 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/22/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte JAMES P. THIEL ________________ Appeal 2012-004927 Application 10/841,986 Technology Center 1700 ________________ Before CHARLES F. WARREN, TERRY J. OWENS, and CATHERINE Q. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-004927 Application 10/841,986 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-8, 10-13 and 18, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellant claims a method for coating a substrate with a metal layer and a metal oxide layer in a single zone of a magnetron sputtered vacuum deposition (MSVD) coater. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method of coating a substrate with a metal layer and a metal oxide layer in a single zone of a MSVD coater, comprising: providing a first bay of a zone including a first target comprising a first metal to deposit a metal coating layer; providing a second bay of the zone including a second target comprising one or more metals to provide a metal oxide coating layer; and pumping a reactive gas selected from oxygen or nitrogen into the zone; wherein the second target has a ΔG of equal to or less than -160 kcal/mole O2 or the difference in ΔG between the first target and the second target is at least 60 kcal/mole O2. The References Iida US 5,085,926 Feb. 4, 1992 Lemmer US 6,336,999 B1 Jan. 8, 2002 Arbab US 6,495,251 B1 Dec. 17, 2002 MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY (2011), at http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/bay?show=2&t=1297792640 (hereinafter Merriam-Webster). Appeal 2012-004927 Application 10/841,986 3 The Rejections The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1-3 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Lemmer, claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Lemmer as evidenced by Merriam-Webster, claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lemmer, claims 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lemmer in view of Arbab, claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lemmer in view of Merriam-Webster and Iida, and claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lemmer in view of Iida. OPINION We reverse the rejections. We need to address only the independent claims, i.e., claims 1 and 18.1 Claim 1 The Examiner argues that Lemmer’s targets made of silver (28) and silicon (30) correspond, respectively, to the Appellant’s first and second targets in a single zone (Ans. 4). As stated and illustrated by Lemmer, targets 28 and 30 are in different zones, i.e., target 28 is in zone 2 and target 30 is in zone 3 (col. 5, ll. 3-5; Fig. 5). The Examiner states, without providing supporting evidence, that “a common definition of ‘zone’ is a region or area set off as distinct from surrounding or adjoining parts” (Ans. 12). The Examiner argues that Lemmer’s coating line (58) which includes three zones (col. 5, l. 6; Figs. 4, 1 The Examiner does not rely upon Merriam-Webster or Arbab for any disclosure that remedies the deficiency in the references applied to the independent claims (Ans. 5-8). Appeal 2012-004927 Application 10/841,986 4 5) is a large zone and that both targets 28 and 30 are in that large zone (Ans. 12). “‘[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.’” In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). The Examiner’s argument is not persuasive because the Examiner has not addressed the Appellant’s Specification and explained how the broadest reasonable interpretation of the Appellants’ claim term “zone” consistent with the Specification includes a coating line containing multiple zones. Claim 18 The Examiner’s rejection of claim 18, which requires silver, titanium and aluminum/silicon targets in a single zone, is deficient for the reason given above regarding the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections. DECISION/ORDER The rejections of claims 1-3 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Lemmer, claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Lemmer as evidenced by Merriam-Webster, claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lemmer, claims 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lemmer in view of Arbab, claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lemmer in view of Merriam-Webster and Iida, and claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lemmer in view of Iida are reversed. It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED bar