Ex Parte Gmeilbauer et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 29, 201713014804 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 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. 13/014,804 01/27/2011 Erich Gmeilbauer WSAG 0286 PUS 1416 22045 7590 12/01/2017 RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C EXAMINER 1000 TOWN CENTER LOPEZ, RICARDO E. TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1786 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/01/2017 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): docketing @brookskushman. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ERICH GMEILBAUER, ROBERT VORBUCHNER, and MARTIN WEBER Appeal 2017-003565 Application 13/014,804 Technology Center 1700 Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, GEORGE C. BEST, and N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges. WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s July 28, 2015 decision finally rejecting claim 12 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Siltronic AG (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2017-003565 Application 13/014,804 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants’ invention is directed to a single crystal composed of silicon (Spec. 1:16—17). Claim 12 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief (emphasis added): 12. A single crystal composed of silicon having a diameter of at least 100 mm, a crystal orientation, a dopant concentration of an element of the third or fifth main group of the periodic system of 1-1017 to T 1020 cm'2 3 and an oxygen concentration of 4-1017 to 9-1017 cm'3, wherein the concentration of macroscopic voids having a diameter of at least 50 pm in the single crystal is not more than 50 m'3. Appeal Br. (Claims App. 1). DISCUSSION The only rejection on appeal is the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kulkami2 as evidenced by Mohr.3 Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Kulkami’s silicon ingot would have inherently possessed an oxygen concentration in a range that substantially overlaps the claimed oxygen concentration range (Appeal Br. 11; Ans. 5). Furthermore, Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s reliance on Mohr’s evidence, which provides oxygen concentrations from Czochralski grown single crystal silicon ingots (Appeal Br. 11; Ans. 5). The Examiner finds that Kulkami teaches or suggests each of the remaining limitations recited in claim 12 (see generally Ans. 4—5). Although Kulkami does not specifically disclose the requisite concentration 2 Kulkami et al., US 2003/0061985 Al, published April 3, 2003. 3 Mohr et al., US 2002/0084451 Al, published July 4, 2002. 2 Appeal 2017-003565 Application 13/014,804 of macroscopic voids having a diameter of at least 50 pm, the Examiner finds that “Kulkami teaches that the arsenic dissolution rate may be increased by decreasing the size of the arsenic bubbles and/or by increasing the number of arsenic bubbles” {id. at 7, citing Kulkami | 84; see also Ans. 4). The Examiner further finds that Kulkami teaches that the preferable bubble size is less than 100 pm for maximizing arsenic concentration in the silicon melt (Ans. 4, citing Kulkami | 86). The Examiner determines, inter alia, that it would have been obvious for the ordinary skilled artisan “to optimize the size and number of bubbles of arsenic dopant in Kulkami’s ingot by controlling the dissolution of arsenic into the melt, when it is desired to provide the ingot with specific properties” (Ans. 4). Appellants argue, inter alia, that “the gas in these macroscopic voids ... is derived from the walls of the quartz cmcible, not from any dopants which may also be contained in the melt” (Appeal Br. 9). According to Appellants, the silicon dioxide of the cmcible reacts with the silicon of the melt to form silicon monoxide, which is a gas at high melt temperatures {id.; see also Spec. 5:29—6:8). Appellants further argue that [i]f arsenic gas bubbles were present in the melt during crystal pulling, and if arsenic were ‘controlled’ to minimize the number of bubbles,... this would still have no effect on the macroscopic voids formed from silicon monoxide gas and included gas derived from corrosion of the quartz cmcible wall (Appeal Br. 15). Appellants’ arguments are persuasive. It is well understood that “rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal 3 Appeal 2017-003565 Application 13/014,804 conclusion of obviousness.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The fact that a reference may be modified to reflect features of the claimed invention does not make the modification, and hence the claimed invention, obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of such modification. In re Mills, 916 F.2d 680, 682 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The Examiner has not provided adequate reasoning to explain why a person of skill in the art would have modified the teachings of Kulkami to control macroscopic voids, which are formed from silicon monoxide gas or any gas derived from corrosion of the quartz crucible wall (see Ans. 4—7). In particular, the Examiner’s reasoning does not explain how optimization of arsenic dopant bubble size and number would provide the concentration of macroscopic voids of less than 50 m'3 in the event that such voids are formed from silicon monoxide or any non-dopant gas. Without such reasoning, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness. Thus, Appellants’ arguments have identified reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that Kulkami, as evidenced by Mohr, renders claims 12 obvious. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 12 for the reasons set forth above. CONCLUSION We REVERSE the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kulkami as evidenced by Mohr. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation