Ex Parte Arena et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 23, 201612305574 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/305,574 12/18/2008 28765 7590 08/25/2016 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP PA TENT DEPARTMENT 1700 K STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20006 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Chantal Arena 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. 94717-5900 5792 EXAMINER CHEN, KEATH T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1716 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/25/2016 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): patentdocket@winston.com sfanelli @wins ton. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHANTAL ARENA and CHRISTIAAN WERKHOVEN Appeal2014-007562 Application 12/305,574 Technology Center 1700 Before CHUNG K. PAK, TERRY J. OWENS, and JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). The Invention The Appellants claim a system for forming a monocrystalline Group III-V semiconductor material. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A system for providing high volume production of a monocrystalline Group III-V semiconductor material, which comprises: a high volume source of a gallium trichloride precursor for use as a first reactant, which provides the gallium trichloride precursor at a first temperature and a mass flow rate of at least 50 g/hr of the element gallium through a delivery conduit; Appeal2014-007562 Application 12/305,574 a high volume source of a Group V component for use as a second reactant, and a temperature controlled reaction chamber that receives through entry apertures the gallium trichloride precursor and Group V component for reaction to form the monocrystalline Group III-V semiconductor material at a second temperature with the Group V component and gallium trichloride precursor received in the reaction chamber through separate and different entry apertures, wherein the high volume source of gallium trichloride, its delivery conduit and the high volume source of the Group V component are external to the temperature controlled reaction chamber, and wherein the gallium trichloride precursor delivery conduit is maintained with a specific temperature profile that increases or at least does not decrease along the delivery conduit from the first temperature to a temperature that is near the second temperature of the reaction chamber with all temperatures above that which would cause condensation of gallium trichloride precursor before it is delivered to the reaction chamber. The References Coleman us 4,519,999 May 28, 1985 Nishizawa us 5,035,767 July 30, 1991 Hoke us 5,077,875 Jan. 7, 1992 Molnar us 6,086,673 July 11, 2000 Sze us 6,110,809 Aug. 29, 2000 Melnik US 6,613,143 Bl Sep.2,2003 Sn eh US 2003/0168001 Al Sep. 11, 2003 Laflamme US 2004/0182315 Al Sept. 23, 2004 Carpenter US 6,926,775 B2 Aug. 9, 2005 The Rejections The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1 and 18-20 over Melnik in view of Sze and Molnar, claims 2-8, 13, and 14 over Melnik in view of Sze, Molnar, Hoke and Nishizawa, claims 9, 10, 12, 2 Appeal2014-007562 Application 12/305,574 and 17 over Melnik in view of Sze, Molnar, Hoke, Nishizawa and Carpenter, claim 11 over Melnik in view of Sze, Molnar, Hoke, Nishizawa, Carpenter and Laflamme, claim 15 over Melnik in view of Sze, Molnar, Hoke, Nishizawa and Coleman and claim 16 over Melnik in view of Sze, Molnar and Sneh. OPINION We affirm the rejections as to claims 1---6, 13-16, and 18-20 and reverse them as to claims 7-12 and 17. The Appellants argue the claims in the following groups: 1) claims 1- 6, 16, and 18-20, 2) claims 7 and 8, 3) claims 9, 10, 12, and 17, 4) claim 11, and 5) claims 13-15 (App. Br. 9-10). We therefore limit our discussion of the affirmed rejections to one claim in each group of claims whose rejections are affirmed, i.e., claim 1 in group 1 and claim 13 in group 5. Claims 2-6, 16, and 18-20 stand or fall with claim 1, and claims 14 and 15 stand or fall with claim 13. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012). Claim 1 Melnik reacts heated HCl with Ga in a source tube (105) to form GaCb, transports the GaCb to a reactor's growth zone wherein it is reacted with NH3 at 1,000-1,100 QC to form 0.05-1 micron per minute of high quality GaN on seed substrates ( 117), and lowers the growth zone temperature to 850-1,000 QC at which lower quality GaN grows at 5- 500 microns per hour (col. 7, 11. 21-37). Sze feeds GaCb and NH3 separately to a reactor because they are extremely reactive, and reacts them in the reactor at about 300-1,400 QC to form GaN (col. 3, 11. 12--40). 3 Appeal2014-007562 Application 12/305,574 Molnar teaches that due to the relatively low vapor pressure of GaClx its vapor tends to condense on unheated surfaces and can condense on reactor exhaust lines unless the lines are operated at a sufficiently high temperature such as greater than 150 QC and/or at a pressure below atmospheric (col. 4, 11. 30-32, 62----67). The Appellants assert that "Molnar discloses operating at a temperature of greater than 150QC to reduce condensation in his exhaust lines (Col. 4, lines 62-66), but no such concern or design criteria is expressed for the inlet lines or delivery conduit" (App. Br. 12). Molnar's disclosures that GaClx condenses on unheated surfaces of inlet lines (col. 4, 11. 30-37) and that condensation of GaCb in exhaust lines can be prevented by operating the exhaust lines at a temperature greater than 150 QC (col. 4, 11. 62----67) would have led one of ordinary skill in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity, to likewise prevent condensation of GaCb in inlet lines by operating them at a temperature greater than 150 QC. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (in making an obviousness determination one "can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would emp 1 oy"). The Appellants assert that their Specification discloses that operating inlet lines at a temperature greater than 150 QC would destroy seals used to prevent leakage (Reply Br. 7). That assertion is inconsistent with the Appellants' Specification which discloses (Spec. 23:6-16): Commercially available chlorine-resistant, sealing materials, such as gasket materials and 0-ring materials, available for use in the inlet manifold, in particular for sealing the manifold to 4 Appeal2014-007562 Application 12/305,574 the quartz reaction chamber, begin to deteriorate at temperatures in excess of about approximately 160QC. Chlorine-resistant sealing materials such [as] silicone o-rings usable to higher temperatures, if available, can also be used, in which case the inlet manifold upper temperature limit can be raised. Accordingly, inlet manifold temperature T3 should be controlled to remain in the range of about approximately 155 to 160QC by either supplying heat to raise the temperature from ambient or removing transferred heat from the hot reaction chamber and very hot susceptor. The Appellants assert that Molnar does not provide a delivery conduit with an increasing temperature profile (App. Br. 12-13). The Appellants' claim 1 is not limited to a delivery conduit with an increasing temperature profile but, rather, includes a delivery conduit with a "temperature profile that increases or at least does not decrease along the delivery conduit". The Appellants assert that "Sze discloses that a large amount of ammonium chloride (NH4Cl) can affect the surface flatness of the gallium nitride epitaxial layer (See column 2, lines 15-17)" (App. Br. 13) and that "the invention of Sze also produces NH4Cl (See the reaction equation in column 3, between lines 15-20)" (id.). Sze discloses regarding the prior art that ammonium chloride powder (not ammonium chloride generally) affects gallium nitride epitaxial layer surface flatness ("excessive or non-reaction hydrogen chloride and ammonia can create a large amount of additional ammonium chloride (NH4Cl) powder. This can affect the surface flatness of the gallium nitride epitaxial layer" (col. 2, 11. 15-19) ). Sze' s method forms ammonium chloride (col. 3, 1. 18), but not in powder form ("[ s ]ince gallium trichloride (Ga Cb) is 5 Appeal2014-007562 Application 12/305,574 directly used to form gallium nitride (GaN), the formation of ammonium chloride (NH4Cl) powder before forming gallium nitride (GaN) can be prevented, thereby ensuring the quality of a formed epitaxial layer" (col. 3, 11. 19--23)). The Appellants argue, in reliance upon the Declaration of Chantal Arena and Christiaan Werkhoven, "that a skilled artisan did not know how to provide a gaseous high volume flow of GaCb because that material was a solid at room temperature, requiring fine temperature controls to obtain gaseous or liquid forms which were known to be highly corrosive" (App. Br. 13). Arena and Werkhoven state that they used GaCb in gaseous form from an external source "even through engineering a high volume delivery system for gaseous GaCb had never before been attempted successfully because: this compound is solid at room temperature; requires fine temperature control to produce adequate vapor pressures; and its liquid and gaseous forms are highly corrosive making the engineering of the delivery system challenging" (Deel. i-f 9). The declarants, however, provide no evidence that such temperature control and handling of highly corrosive materials would have been unobvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Appellants assert that "as Sze uses the vapor pressure from the gas to flow the precursors to the reaction chamber, it would be impossible to achieve the high volume flow" (App. Br. 15). That argument is not well taken because it is merely unsupported attorney argument, and arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). 6 Appeal2014-007562 Application 12/305,574 The Appellants assert that Sze' s exemplified 100 µmole/min GaCh flow rate (col. 3, 1. 52) provides only 0.4 g/hr of gallium, which is significantly below the Appellants' claim 1 's required at least 50 g/hr (App. Br. 16), and that "[t]here is no teaching in Sze as to what type of equipment to utilize to increase the flow of precursor as in the current application, i.e., via the GaCh vaporizer, with its delivery line, carrier gas and temperature control" (App. Br. 15). "A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. One of ordinary skill in the art who desired a higher GaN production rate than that in Sze' s example would have determined, through no more than routine calculation and experimentation, the flow rates and equipment sizes needed for that production rate. Thus, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of claim 1 and claims 2-6, 16, and 18-20 that stand or fall therewith. Claim 13 In addition to the limitations in claim 1, claim 13 requires that "the reaction chamber includes one or more walls and is surrounded by an enclosure which is operatively associated with one or more fans for circulating air in the enclosure to lower the temperature of the reaction chamber wall(s) to reduce or prevent deposition of the gallium trichloride precursor or reaction byproducts on the reaction chamber wall(s) to provide a longer operating time before maintenance is required". Hoke discloses a reactor (10) having a rectangular growth chamber (11) which is suitable for growing GaN and has a top surface (25) cooled by air currents (26) from a fan to minimize chemical deposition on the top surface (25) and consequent flaking of deposits onto a substrate (63) 7 Appeal2014-007562 Application 12/305,574 during the growth process and to minimize depletion of incoming gases (Abstract; col. 9, 1. 61 - col. 10, 1. 3; Figs. 3--4). The Appellants assert that "[a ]t best, Hoke suggests that fans can be directed at the top of the reactor. This is not what is recited in claim 13, which recites a structure that is not present in Hoke" (App. Br. 18). Given Hoke's disclosure of cooling a reactor surface by air currents to minimize chemical deposition on that surface, one of ordinary skill in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity, would have used air currents to cool whatever portions of the reactor surface need to be cooled to minimize chemical deposition thereon. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Hence, we are not convinced of reversible error in the rejection of claim 13 and claims 14 and 15 that stand or fall therewith. Claim 7 Claim 7, which depends indirectly from claim 1, requires that "the reaction chamber includes a floor, a ceiling, a pair of sidewalls, an open inlet, an open outlet, and one of the entry apertures is a first entry aperture for either one of the reactants that comprises a horizontal slot in the floor configured and dimensioned to direct the reactant being introduced through the first entry aperture to the predetermined location for reaction." The Examiner states that "the apertures for each of the source tubes 105 in [Melnik's] Fig. 5 is considered 'one of the entry apertures is a first entry aperture for one of the reactants that comprises a horizontal slot in the floor configured and dimensioned to direct the reactant being introduced through the first entry aperture to the predetermined location for reaction'" (Ans. 6). 8 Appeal2014-007562 Application 12/305,574 The Examiner does not point out, and it is not apparent, where Melnik's Figure 5 shows, or would have suggested, a horizontal slot in the reactor floor for directing a reactant. The Examiner, therefore, has not established a prima facie case of obviousness as to claim 7 or claims 8-12 and 17 which depend directly or indirectly therefrom. DECISION/ORDER The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1and18-20 over Melnik in view of Sze and Molnar, claim 15 over Melnik in view of Sze, Molnar, Hoke, Nishizawa and Coleman and claim 16 over Melnik in view of Sze, Molnar and Sneh are affirmed. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 2-8, 13, and 14 over Melnik in view of Sze, Molnar, Hoke and Nishizawa is affirmed as to claims 2-6, 13, and 14 and reversed as to claims 7 and 8. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 9, 10, 12, and 17 over Melnik in view of Sze, Molnar, Hoke, Nishizawa and Carpenter and claim 11 over Melnik in view of Sze, Molnar, Hoke, Nishizawa, Carpenter and Laflamme are reversed. It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is affirmed-in-part. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation