Ex Parte IINO

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 26, 2003

09229086 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 26, 2003)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and
is not binding precedent of the Board

Paper No. 35

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte GUNMA-KEN EIICHI IINO
___________

Appeal No. 2003-0136
Application No. 09/229,086
___________

ON BRIEF
__________

Before WARREN, DELMENDO, and PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent
Judges.

PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 4.
Claim 1 is illustrative, and is set forth below:

1. A method of producing a silicon monocrystal which
comprises preparing a silicon seed crystal having a sharp tip
end, and melting down a part of the silicon seed crystal from a
tip end to a position having a first thickness, followed by
performing a necking operation to form a tapered necking part and
a neck portion, and subsequently pulling a monocrystal ingot
after increasing a diameter, wherein the first thickness is twice
as large as the diameter of the neck portion to be formed or
more; said necking operation is performed in such a way that the
tapered necking part is formed at an early stage by pulling the
crystal with gradually decreasing the diameter to a minimum
diameter of 5 mm or more, and then a neck portion is formed,
Appeal No. 2003-0136
Application 09/229,086

2

subsequently the monocrystal ingot is pulled with increasing a
diameter.

The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:

Murai et al. (Murai) 5,501,172 Mar. 26, 1996
Izumi 5,932,002 Aug. 3, 1999

Claims 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Murai in view of Izumi.

OPINION

We have carefully reviewed the brief, reply brief, and the
answer, and the evidence of record. For the reasons set forth in
the answer, and below, we affirm the rejection.
Figure 1 of appellants’ specification is illustrative of the
subject matter set forth in appellants’ claim 1. Item B in
Figure 1 of appellants’ specification indicates the location of
the tip end of seed crystal 3 after melting, and is recited as a
“first thickness” in claim 1. See page 11 at lines 17-18 of
appellants’ specification.
Appellants state on page 6 of the brief that the size of the
diameter defined by first thickness B (the tip end of the seed
crystal after melting) is not necessarily equivalent to the
diameter A of the cylindrical portion of seed crystal 3.
Appellants state that the only time first thickness B equals the
size of diameter A is “when the entire tip end portion of the
seed crystal is melted down” (brief, page 6).
Hence, appellants admit that that the size of the diameter
defined by first thickness B can be the same as diameter A of the
cylindrical portion of seed crystal 3 of appellants’ Figure 1.
Appeal No. 2003-0136
Application 09/229,086

3

Appellants’ claim 1 requires that first thickness (B) is
twice as large or more than the diameter (C) of neck portion 5
See Figure 1. On pages 6-8 of the brief, appellants argue that
this aspect of their claimed invention is neither shown nor
suggested by Murai or Izumi.
Beginning on page 4 of the answer, the examiner rebuts and
states that Murai discloses the dimensions required by appellants
claims. The examiner refers to column 3, lines 55+ and column 4,
lines 1-32 of Murai, and refers to Figure 1 of Murai. On page 5
of the answer, the examiner specifically states that the
requirement of a first thickness as defined as being twice or
more as large as the neck portion is found in column 4, lines 20-
25 of Murai.1
We find, in column 4, beginning at line 19 of Murai, that
Murai discloses that the diameter of neck B can be adjusted in
the range of 0.09 to 0.9 times the sectional size of the seed
crystal 2, which is depicted as item A in Figure 1. See column
6, lines 6-11. Given the fact that appellants admit that the
size of the diameter defined by first thickness B can be the same
as diameter A of the cylindrical portion of seed crystal 3, we
also find that item A in Murai’s Figure 1 can be the diameter of
a first thickness as defined in appellants’ claim 1. Because
item A can be the claimed “first thickness”, we agree with the
examiner that column 4, lines 20-25 of Murai teaches a first
thickness (as defined in appellants’ claim) that is twice as
large or more as the diameter of B shown in Murai’s Figure 1.

1 Hence, it is disputed as to whether Murai teaches or suggests melting down a
part of the silicon seed crystal 2 from a tip end to a portion having a first
thickness, wherein the first thickness is twice as large or more than the
diameter of the neck (the diameter of the neck is depicted in appellants’
figure 1 as item C; the diameter of the neck is depicted in Murai’s figure 1
as item B).
Appeal No. 2003-0136
Application 09/229,086

4

Furthermore, we note that where general conditions of the
appealed claims are disclosed in the prior art, it is not
inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine
experimentation, and appellants have the burden of proving any
criticality. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 218-
19 (CCPA 1980); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235
(CCPA 1955). Here, Murai teaches a method of growing silicon
crystals that is substantially similar to appellants’ claimed
method, and any optimization of respective diameters of a first
thickness and a neck portion found in Murai is deemed obvious,
absent evidence of criticality. See also In re Best, 562 F.2d
1252, 1255 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977).
We also have reviewed both the appellants’ and the
examiner’s comments on Izumi. We find ourselves in agreement
with the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to
modify the method of Murai by utilizing a conical seed (a “sharp
tip end” as recited in appellants’ claim 1) in view of Izumi’s
teachings that the use of a conical seed helps prevent thermal
shock during pulling of a single crystal, and we refer to page 4
of the answer in this regard. Appellants argue that the
combination of Murai in view of Isumi is improper, inter alia,
because Izumi does not perform a necking operation. However,
Izumi’s method does apply to a method of pulling a single
crystal, which is the method that occurs in Murai, and therefore
we determine that the combination is proper in this regard.
In view of the above, we therefore affirm the rejection.
Appeal No. 2003-0136
Application 09/229,086

5

No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

Charles F. Warren )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Romulo H. Delmendo ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Beverly A. Pawlikowski )
Administrative Patent Judge )

BAP/cam

Appeal No. 2003-0136
Application 09/229,086

6

HOGAN & HARTSON, LLP
500 S. Grand Avenue
Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2611