Ex Parte Arena et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 23, 201712303950 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/303,950 06/16/2010 Chantal Arena 94717-14100 1741 28765 7590 02/27/2017 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP PATENT DEPARTMENT 1700 K STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20006 EXAMINER BRATLAND JR, KENNETH A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1714 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/27/2017 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 @ winston. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHANTEL ARENA, CHRISTIAAN J. WERKHOVEN, THOMAS ANDREW STEIDL, CHARLES MICHAEL BIRTCHER, and ROBERT CLARK Appeal 2015-002063 Application 12/303,950 Technology Center 1700 Before CHUNG K. PAK, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8—17, 24—28, and 30—36. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on February 13, 2017. Appeal 2015-002063 Application 12/303,950 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants’ subject matter on appeal and is set forth below: 1. A system for facilitating a high volume manufacturing process for forming a Group III-N semiconductor material which comprises: a source of a gaseous Group III trichloride precursor at a controllable mass flow of Group III element, wherein the Group III trichloride precursor comprises gallium trichloride, and wherein the trichloride precursor source further comprises: a container having a corrosion resistant inner surface for holding a liquid form of the Group III trichloride precursor; a dip tube in the container with an outlet for bubbling a carrier gas through a liquid in the container; a valve controlled container inlet leading to the dip tube; a valve controlled container outlet leading to a delivery line; the delivery line for carrying the carrier gas and a gaseous form of the Group III trichloride precursor to a reaction zone for conversion of the Group III trichloride precursor into a Group III-N semiconductor material; and a container heater for heating the container to a temperature sufficient to melt a solid form of the Group III trichloride precursor; an inlet manifold structure associated with the delivery line and an associated heater, with the manifold structure comprising a tube containing an insert, a thermocouple inserted in the tube to enable close loop control to the associated heater to maintain a desired temperature of the insert as well as the carrier gas and precursor that pass by the insert in the tube, and a mass flow controller for controlling the said mass flow of the gaseous Group III trichloride precursor. The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence of unpatentability: Toulmin Collins Mihira Lai US 3,075,494 US 5,078,922 US 5,377,616 US 6,129,043 Jan. 29, 1963 Jan. 7, 1992 Jan. 3, 1995 Oct. 10, 2000 2 Appeal 2015-002063 Application 12/303,950 Watanabe Takahashi Melnik US 2004/0123735 A1 US 2004/0194707 A1 US 2005/0056222 A1 US 2006/0011135 A1 US 7,906,411 B2 Jul. 1, 2004 Oct. 7, 2004 Mar. 17, 2005 Jan. 19, 2006 Mar. 15,2011 Dmitriev Wang Varadarajan, On the Chloride Vapor-phase. Epitaxy Growth of GaN and its Characterization, Journal of Crystal Growth, Vol. 260, pp 43-49 (2004). 1. Claims 1, 8, 15-17, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Varadarajan in view of Takahashi. 2. Claims 2 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over a publication to Varadarajan in view of Takahashi and further in view of Dmitriev. 3. Claims 5-6 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Varadarajan in view of Takahashi and further in view of Watanabe. 4. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Varadarajan in view of Takahashi and further in view of Watanabe and further in view of Dmitriev. 5. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Varadarajan in view of Takahashi and further in view of Mihira. THE REJECTIONS 3 Appeal 2015-002063 Application 12/303,950 6. Claims 10, 12-14, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Varadarajan in view of Takahashi and further in view of Collins. 7. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Varadarajan in view of Takahashi and Collins and further in view of Lai. 8. Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Varadarajan in view of Takahashi and further in view of Wang. 9. Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Varadarajan in view of Takahashi and Wang and further in view of Toulmin. 10. Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Varadarajan in view of Takahashi and Collins and further in view of Wang. 11. Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Varadarajan in view of Takahashi and Collins and further in view of Wang and Toulmin. 4 Appeal 2015-002063 Application 12/303,950 ANALYSIS We reverse each rejection advanced in this appeal based on procedural1 flaws, discussed below. On page 32 of the Answer, the Examiner refers to a MKS datasheet and Timmons. On page 2 of the Advisory Action mailed July 15, 2014, the Examiner states that these publications were introduced into the record. However, the Examiner does not indicate that these publications were positively included in the statement of any of the pending rejections. We note that where a reference is relied on to support a rejection, whether or not in a minor capacity, that reference should be positi vely included in the statement of the rejection. See In relloch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3 166 USPQ 406, 407 n, 3 (CCPA 1970). In the instant case, we therefore procedurally reverse the rejections and remand this case to the Examiner to consider incorporating such prior art references in the statement of the rejections if the Examiner intends to maintain the rejections based on such and other prior art references. We reiterate that a decision has not been made based on the technical merits of the rejections. DECISION Each rejection is reversed. ORDER REVERSED/REMANDED 1 In other words, we do not make determinations based upon the technical merits of the rejections. 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation