Ex Parte Fabry et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2016

13267111 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016)

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.
13/267,111 10/06/2011 Laszlo FABRY W1154/20029 9707
3000 7590
CAESAR RIVISE, PC
7 Penn Center, 12th Floor
1635 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2212
12/30/2016 EXAMINER
MCCLURE, CHRISTINA D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1718
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2016 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):
patents @ crbcp .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LASZLO FABRY, THOMAS ALTMANN, and HEINZ KRAUS
Appeal 2015-006409
Application 13/267,111
Technology Center 1700
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1—9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 We cite to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed Oct. 6, 2011; Final Office
Action (“Final Act.”) dated Aug. 8, 2014; the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”);
and Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”).
2 Appellants identify Wacker Chemie AG as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-006409
Application 13/267,111
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a method for producing
polycrystalline silicon rods. Spec. 1. Sole independent claim 1 is
reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief as follows:
1. A method for producing polycrystalline silicon rods by
deposition of silicon on at least one thin rod in a reactor,
wherein: (a) the at least one thin rod is heated by direct current
passage; (b) a reaction gas containing a chlorosilane and
hydrogen is introduced and silicon is deposited on the at least
one thin rod at temperatures of more than 1000°C; and ( c)
before the silicon deposition, hydrogen halide at a thin rod
temperature of 400-1000°C is introduced into the reactor
containing at least one thin rod and is irradiated with UV light,
such that halogen and hydrogen radicals arise and volatile
halides and hydrides that form are removed from the reactor.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:3
I. Claims 1,2, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Reuschel,4 Iwasaki,5 and Sugino.6
II. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Reuschel, Iwasaki, Sugino, and Yatsurugi.7
3 Final Act. 2—16; Ans. 2—15.
4 US 4,148,931, iss. Apr. 10, 1979 (“Reuschel”).
5 US 5,174,881, iss. Dec. 29, 1992 (“Iwasaki”).
6 JP 03265136 A, pub. Nov. 26, 1991 (“Sugino”), as translated.
7 US 6,503,563 Bl, iss. Jan. 7, 2003 (“Yatsurugi”).
2
Appeal 2015-006409
Application 13/267,111
III. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Reuschel, Iwasaki, Sugino, and Jones.8
IV. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Reuschel, Iwasaki, Sugino, and Banshah.9
V. Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Reuschel, Iwasaki, Sugino, Yatsurugi, and Jones.
VI. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Reuschel, Iwasaki, Sugino, Yatsurugi, Jones, and
Banshah.
OPINION
I
With regard to Rejection I, Appellants argue the claims as a group.
See App. Br. 3—6. We limit our discussion to representative claim 1, and
decide the propriety of Rejection I based on the representative claim alone.
Claims 2 and 5 stand or fall with claim 1.
After having considered the evidence presented in this Appeal and
each of Appellants’ contentions, we are not persuaded that Appellants
identify reversible error, and we sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection
for the reasons expressed in the Final Action, the Answer, and below.
8 Jones, A.C. et al., CVD Reactors and Delivery System Technology,
Chemical Vapour Deposition: Precursors, Processes and Applications 45—58
(2009) (“Jones”).
9 Banshah, R.F., Chemical Vapor Deposition, Handbook of Deposition
Technologies for Films and Coatings — Science, Applications and
Technology 400-413 (1994) (“Banshah”)
3
Appeal 2015-006409
Application 13/267,111
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Reuschel
discloses a method for producing polycrystalline silicon rods which
comprises steps (a) and (b) recited in claim 1. Compare Final Act. 3^4 with
App. Br. 3—6; Reply Br. 2—5. Nor do Appellants dispute the Examiner’s
finding that Reuschel teaches the use of “hyper pure silicon mandrels” in
that method. Compare Final Act. 3 with App. Br. 4 (referring to “Reuschel’s
requirement for hyperpure silicon as a substrate for deposition”).
Appellants argue that Reuschel’s “preference for hyperpure elemental
silicon as a substrate is not an identification of the problem of
contamination,” App. Br. 4, and rely on the legal doctrine that a “patentable
invention may lie in the discovery of the source of a problem,” id. (quoting
MPEP § 2141.02). However, Reuschel’s disclosed need for purity is, at
least, a recognition that any contamination should be avoided or resolved.
Moreover, as Appellants explain in the Specification, contamination of thin
rod substrates in deposition processes was a known consequence of
mechanical separation techniques and, “[therefore, it is usually necessary to
subject the thin rods to surface cleaning before they can be used for the
deposition of silicon.” Spec. 2. In light of this evidence, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have had reason to apply a known method for removing
contaminants in order to provide the desired hyperpure silicon substrate
called for by Reuschel.
Appellants also argue that Iwasaki’s technique of using hydrogen
chloride gas and UV irradiation to remove oxides and other impurities from
a silicon substrate is incompatible with Reuschel because Iwasaki teaches
that temperatures in excess of 700°C are to be avoided, whereas Reuschel
4
Appeal 2015-006409
Application 13/267,111
requires higher process temperatures. App. Br. 4. We disagree. Reuschel’s
higher temperatures relate to the silicon deposition process—i.e., steps (a)
and (b) in claim 1—whereas Iwasaki’s contaminant removal process relates
to substrate purification which is performed prior to silicon deposition. We
see no incompatibility between Iwasaki’s pre-deposition temperature and
Reuschel’s higher deposition process temperature.
Appellants’ further argument that Iwasaki is directed to non-
analogous art, App. Br. 5—6, also is not persuasive. Both Iwasaki and
Reuschel, like the claimed invention, are within the field of depositing
polycrystalline silicon on a silicon substrate. Moreover, Iwasaki particularly
pertains to the problem faced by the inventors in this case—surface
treatment of the deposition substrate for removal of contaminants. See K-
Tec, Inc. v. Vita-Mix Corp., 696 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(explaining that a reference is analogous if it is from the same field of
endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
inventor is involved).
Appellants have not persuaded us of reversible error. Accordingly,
we sustain Rejection I.
II-IV
Appellants do not present any particular argument in their Appeal
Brief or Reply Brief against the Examiner’s separate rejections of claims 3,
4, and 6—9, other than an implicit reliance on the arguments presented with
regard to claim 1. See App. Br. 3—6; Reply Br. 2—5. We therefore sustain
each of these Rejections for the reasons set forth above with regard to
Rejection I.
5
Appeal 2015-006409
Application 13/267,111
DECISION/ORDER
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are
affirmed.
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
6