Ex Parte LI et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 31, 2006

10121284 (B.P.A.I. May. 31, 2006)

-1-
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication in a law journal
and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte LIHUA LI, WEN H. ZHU, TZU-FANG HUANG,
LI QUN XIA and ELLIE YIEH
________________

Appeal No. 2005-2442
Application No. 10/121,284
________________

ON BRIEF
________________

Before KIMLIN, OWENS, and FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent
Judges.

FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

REQUEST FOR REHEARING1
Appellants have submitted a Request for Rehearing2 of our
Decision mailed November 27, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as
"Request”).
On page 2 of the Request, appellants state that the Board’s
statement that the examiner's interpretation of an unclear
sentence in a reference is a reasonable interpretation is not

1 We note that the rule governing such a request is now located
at 37 CFR § 41.52 (effective September 13, 2004; 69 Fed. Reg.
49960 (August 12, 2004); 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21
(September 7, 2004)), and is referred to as a Request for
Rehearing.
2 Appellants refer to the filing as a Request for
Reconsideration.
Appeal No. 2005-2442
Application No. 10/121,284

-2-

sufficient to show that the reference actually teaches or
suggests the subject matter of the examiner's interpretation.
Appellants also argue that the Board errs in relying on Example
4 of Grill for teaching use of trimethylsilane as evidence to
support the examiner's position in this regard. We are not
convinced of error for the following reasons.
The examiner provides a clear explanation on pages 11-12 of
the Answer of why the sentence in Grill suggests to one of
ordinary skill in the art the phrase “molecules of methylsilanes
mixed with an oxidizing agent." We emphasize that the
explanation provided by the examiner, alone (without reference
to our comments on Example 4 of Grill), is sufficient to support
the examiner’s findings. We stated on page 4 of the Decision
that the examiner stated that he did not fix any unclear
statements within the reference, but rather deduced what the
sentence suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art (Answer
11-12). We indicated that we agreed with this statement. The
examiner used the correct standard in making the finding that a
comma was inadvertently omitted at line 20 of column 3 between
“(C10H30O5Si5)” and "molecules."3
Our reference to Example 4 of Grill was to point out that
Example 4 uses trimethylsilane as the first precursor. The
trimethylsilane is used together with a second precursor (BCHD).
On page 2 of the Request, appellants minimize this teaching of
Example 4 by stating that because Example 4 does not
specifically mention an oxidizing agent, it does not support the
examiner’s position that “molecules of methylsilanes mixed with

3 The standard used by the examiner is what is suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art.
Appeal No. 2005-2442
Application No. 10/121,284

-3-

an oxidizing agent” is a distinct member of a list that also
includes molecules with ring structures or precursor mixtures
including Si, O, and C. We note that Example 4 is simply
indicative that trimethylsilane is a first precursor. Because
Example 4 indicates that the first precursor includes
trimethylsilane, then molecules of methylsilanes4 can support the
examiner’s interpretation. Also, the disclosure found in column
3 at lines 14 through 27 of Grill sets forth examples of the
first precursor. From the examples listed therein,
trimethysilane is not an example according to appellants’
interpretation (that “decamethylcyclopenta-siloxane (C10H30O5Si5)
molecules of methylsilanes” is the proper interpretation, and
means the methylsilanes are part of the
decamethylcyclopentasiloxane ring structure).
In view of the above, we do not find in the Request any
argument convincing us of error in the conclusions we reached in
our Decision mailed February 27, 2006. Accordingly, appellants'
Request for Rehearing is denied.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (effective Sep. 13, 2004; 69 Fed. Reg. 49960
(Aug. 12, 2004); 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (Sep. 7, 2004)).

4 Trimethylsilane is an example of a methylsilane.
Appeal No. 2005-2442
Application No. 10/121,284

-4-
DENIED

EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
TERRY J. OWENS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )

BAF:clm
Appeal No. 2005-2442
Application No. 10/121,284

-5-
Applied Materials, Inc.
2881 Scott Blvd., M/S 2061
Santa Clara, CA 95050