Ex parte Kurata et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 16, 2001

08050078 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 16, 2001)

THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
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publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte KAZUHIRO KURATA,
HAJIME NAKAMURA and HIROSHI TOMIDA
____________
Appeal No. 1998-0411
Application No. 08/050,078
____________
HEARD: March 06, 2001
____________
Before KIMLIN, KRATZ, and TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 4-6, which are all of the claims pending
in this application.
Appellants’ invention relates to a method and apparatus
for forming multiple layers on a substrate by epitaxial
growth. An understanding of the invention can be derived from
a reading of appealed claim 4, which is reproduced below.
4. In a process for producing a multi-layered epitaxially
grown crystal comprising a substrate with multiple layers
Appeal No. 1998-0411 Page 2
Application No. 08/050,078
grown on at least one surface thereof, which process
comprises:
arranging a plurality of spaced apart crystalline
substrates facing each other at intervals with said surface
disposed in a substantially vertical direction;
successively disposing melts for each of said multiple
layers into the intervals between the adjacent crystalline
substrates and;
performing a liquid-phase epitaxial growth of each of
said layers successively on the surface of each substrate,
the improvement comprising the steps of:
vertically aligning and spacing said crystalline
substrates in a concave portion of a central upper member of a
substantially cylindrical crystalline substrate holder having
a central axis and having a shaft adapted for rotation
extending downwardly therefrom;
providing fresh melt receptacles and used melt
receptacles respectively, for each of said layers, above and
below, respectively, said cylindrical crystalline substrate
holder, wherein each of said fresh melt and used melt
receptacles are stationarily connected to an outside member in
rotational relationship to said substrate holder, wherein a
multiplicity of
fresh melt and used melt reservoirs, respectively, are
arranged in said receptacles, respectively, radially about
said central axis;
rotating said cylindrical crystalline substrate holder,
relative to said outside member and to said receptacles,
through a series of angular intervals sufficient to
successively align a pair of fresh melt and used melt
reservoirs, respectively, with a vertically disposed substrate
surface;
Appeal No. 1998-0411 Page 3
Application No. 08/050,078
All references to Murakami in this decision are to the1
English language translation prepared by Schreiber
Translations, Inc., of record. We note that our reference to
the Schreiber translation in this decision rather than the
other translation of record submitted by appellants
(attachment to reply brief) has no bearing on the outcome of
this appeal.
successively supplying melts corresponding to said layers
into the intervals between and into effective contact with the
surfaces of adjacent crystalline substrates from said fresh
melt reservoirs; and
successively discharging excess of the melts from said
intervals into said used melt reservoir.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Unno et al. (Unno) 3,765,959 Oct. 16,
1973
Murakami JP Kokai No. 61-135116 June 23, 19861
Claims 4-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Unno in view of Murakami.
OPINION
Upon careful consideration of appellants’ specification
and the claims on appeal, the evidence of obviousness relied
upon by the examiner, and the opposing arguments presented by
appellants and the examiner, we find that the aforementioned §
Appeal No. 1998-0411 Page 4
Application No. 08/050,078
103 rejection is not well founded. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner’s rejection.
We point out that in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
it is fundamental that all elements recited in each claim must
be considered and given appropriate effect by the examiner in
judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art.
See In re Geerdes, 491 F.2d 1260, 1262-63, 180 USPQ 789, 791
(CCPA 1974). Here, the examiner’s rejection set forth in the
answer fails to meet that basic test for the presentation of a
sustainable § 103 rejection.
For example, with regard to the process of claim 4 and
the apparatus of claim 5, the examiner has not reasonably
established how Unno together with Murakami would have
reasonably taught or suggested: (1) vertical and spaced
alignment of multiple substrates in a holder cavity, (2) the
provision of used melt receptacles having a plurality of used
melt reservoirs located below the holder, and (3) the steps or
means for rotating the holder relative to the fixed
receptacles to not only successively cause the supply of melt
from one of the fresh melt reservoirs for contact with the
Appeal No. 1998-0411 Page 5
Application No. 08/050,078
surfaces of substrates but to also successively discharge
excess melt into one of the used melt reservoirs in the
context of the process and apparatus, as respectively set
forth in those claims.
Indeed, Unno discloses a horizontally disposed radially
offset substrate (19) in a non-rotating holder in figure 2 and
the examiner has not pointed out where Unno describes the use
or need for any used melt receptacle let alone a used melt
receptacle having multiple reservoirs and disposed as required
in appellants’ claims 4 and 5. Nor does the examiner
adequately explain how the herein claimed subject matter would
have been suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art by
Unno taken together with the non-rotating holder prior art
arrangement depicted in figure 2 of Murakami or the disparate
rotating holder arrangement of figure 1 of that reference. We
note that the figure 1 rotating holder arrangement of Murakami
employs horizontally aligned substrates (25) and an effluent
receptacle (24) that does not include multiple reservoirs for
used melt. Such disclosure hardly suggests a modification of
Unno that would result in the herein claimed invention.
Appeal No. 1998-0411 Page 6
Application No. 08/050,078
As evident by a review of claim 6, the recited apparatus
is required to include, inter alia:
a cap attached onto the upper surface of said
fresh melt receptacle, having half-notched shaft
means extending downwardly therefrom,
a cover attached onto the upper surface of said
crystalline substrate holder, having half-notched
shaft means extending upwardly therefrom, and
an axially disposed hole at the central part of
said fresh melt receptacle, for receiving said half-
notched shaft of the cap downwardly thereinto and
said half-notched shaft of the cover upwardly
thereinto,
The examiner’s bald assertions that “[i]t is well known
in the art to cover LPE melts so as to prevent loss of
materials from the melt” and “[f]urther, the prior art does
teach a means
to allow opening and closing of the melts” (answer, pages 6
and 7) do not come close to establishing the obviousness,
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103, of the above-noted
limitations of claim 6, let alone the subject matter as a
whole of that claim.
Consequently, we are in agreement with appellants’
conclusion that the examiner has not set forth a prima facie
case of obviousness. See, e.g., pages 12-18 of appellants’
brief.
Appeal No. 1998-0411 Page 7
Application No. 08/050,078
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 4-6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Unno in view of
Murakami is reversed.
REVERSED
Edward C. Kimlin )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Peter F. Kratz ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
Catherine Timm )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1998-0411 Page 8
Application No. 08/050,078
Nikaido, Marmelstein, Murray & Oram
Metropolitan Square
655 15th Street, N.W.
Suite 330 G Street Lobby
Washington, DC 20005-5701
PFK/cam