Ex Parte Chaubey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 16, 2014

12351723 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte TRAPTI CHAUBEY and MINDI XU
________________

Appeal 2013-002927
Application 12/351,723
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, 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 1–4 and 6–19. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim solid precursor vaporization (claim 1) and
sublimation (claim 13) apparatus. Claims 1 and 13 are illustrative:
1. An apparatus for vaporizing a solid precursor comprising:
a container including a sealable opening, a fluid inlet, a fluid outlet
and an inner dimension;
Appeal 2013-002927
Application 12/351,723

2
at least one first shelf having an outer dimension less than the
container inner dimension to form an outer passage, and including an inner
support with an outer dimension;
at least one second shelf including an outer support positioned at the
container inner dimension, and an opening greater than the outer dimension
of the first shelf inner support; and
wherein the first shelf is configured to form an overlapping vertical
stack with the second shelf for positioning in the container, and a fluid flow
path is established between the first shelf and the second shelf through the
outer passage.

13. An apparatus for supporting a solid precursor in a sublimation
chamber, comprising:
a first shelf including a top surface for supporting a solid precursor, a
bottom surface, and a vertically oriented inner support;
a second shelf including a top surface for supporting a solid precursor,
a bottom surface, and a vertically oriented outer support circumferentially
disposed thereon and thermally coupled to the sublimation chamber inner
wall;
an inner passage disposed between the second shelf and the first shelf
inner support;
an outer passage disposed between the first shelf and the second shelf
outer support; and
a horizontally disposed space between the first and second shelves
establishing a fluid flow path between the inner and outer passages in the
sublimation chamber.

The References
Onoe US 6,270,839 B1 Aug. 7, 2001
Suzuki US 2008/0202426 A1 Aug. 28, 2008
The Rejections
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1–4, 6, 8, 9, and 12–14
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Onoe, claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Onoe and claims 10, 11, and 13–19 over Onoe in view of Suzuki.
Appeal 2013-002927
Application 12/351,723

3
OPINION
We reverse the rejections. We need address only the independent
claims, i.e., claims 1 and 13.1
Claim 1
Claim 1 requires “at least one second shelf including an outer support
positioned at the container inner dimension.”
Onoe discloses a raw material vaporization apparatus comprising an
oven (7) for heating a container (1) having raw material storage
cartridges (30a, 30b, 30c) therein, each containing a removable raw-
material-storage pan (32) supported on a spacer (32b) (col. 4, ll. 23–60;
col. 6, ll. 22–38, 56–65; Figs. 4, 5, 9).
The Examiner argues that “[t]he bottom pan 32 is the claimed ‘one
second shelf’, the wall of sub-container 30c (col. 4, line 42) is supporting the
bottom pan 32 through bottom spacer 32b, therefore, the claimed ‘an outer
support’, as it is in the middle of the container 1, the claimed ‘positioned at
the container inner dimension’)” (Ans. 5).
“‘[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 Appellants’ Specification indicates that by the second shelf’s
outer support being positioned at the container inner dimension the
Appellants mean that the outer support’s outer diameter is about the same as

1 The Examiner does not rely upon Suzuki for any disclosure that remedies
the deficiencies in Onoe upon which the reversals are based (Ans. 7–8).
Appeal 2013-002927
Application 12/351,723

4
the container’s inner diameter to maximize contact between the outer
support and the container for enhanced thermal coupling (Spec. 11:13–21).
In response to the Appellants’ argument that “sub-container 30c does
not meet the claimed limitation ‘including an outer support positioned at the
container inner dimension’ because, as illustrated in Figure 4, the outer
support is [sic] of sub-container 30c is positioned nowhere near the inner
dimension of container 1” (App. Br. 10), the Examiner argues that “[i]t
appears Appellants interpret ‘at’ as ‘near’ in the appeal” (Ans. 10) and that
“the outer dimension of sub-container 30c is near the inner dimension of the
container 1. Furthermore, ‘near’ is a relative term.” Id.
The Examiners’ interpretation of the Appellants’ argument as
meaning “at” means “near” is inconsistent with the Appellants’ argument
that “[t]he alleged second shelf of Onoe, sub-container 30c, does not include
an outer support positioned at the inner dimension of container 1” (App.
Br. 9) because “the second shelf outer dimension is less than the inner
dimension of container 1” (App. Br. 10). That argument indicates the
Appellants mean because the outer support of sub-container 30c is nowhere
near container 1’s inner dimension, it cannot be at that inner dimension.
Onoe’s upper storage cartridge (30a) has a lid (35) thereon with an
outer edge extending beyond the outer diameter of the upper storage
cartridge (30a) and resting on a flange (5)’s seat (55) so that the storage
cartridges (30a, 30b, 30c) are detachable from the container (1) and easily
replaceable (col. 5, ll. 7–17). The storage cartridges (30a, 30b, 30c)’s outer
walls are spaced from container (1)’s inner dimension by the width of the
seat (55) (Fig. 4). The Examiner has not established that the broadest
Appeal 2013-002927
Application 12/351,723

5
reasonable interpretation of the Appellants’ claim term “outer support
positioned at the container inner dimension” consistent with the
Specification encompasses an outer support spaced from the container’s
inner dimension by the width of Onoe’s seat (55).
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 13
Claim 13 requires “a second shelf including a top surface for
supporting a solid precursor, a bottom surface, and a vertically oriented outer
support circumferentially disposed thereon.”
The Examiner argues that “the wall of sub-container 30c (col. 4,
line 42) is supporting the bottom pan 32 through bottom spacer 32b,
therefore, the claimed ‘a vertically oriented outer support circumferentially
disposed thereon” (Ans. 5).
Onoe’s bottom pan (32), which the Examiner relies upon as
corresponding to the Appellants’ second shelf (Ans. 5), does not include
sub-container 30c’s wall or the bottom spacer (32b), and sub-container 30c’s
wall is not disposed on the bottom pan (32) (col. 4, ll.23–28, 58–60; Fig. 4).
Hence, we reverse the rejection of claim 13.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejections of claims 1–4, 6, 8, 9, and 12–14 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Onoe, claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Onoe
and claims 10, 11, and 13–19 over Onoe in view of Suzuki are reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED

cdc