Ex Parte Miyamoto et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 23, 2009

10385907 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 23, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HIDEAKI MIYAMOTO, HITOSHI KITAGAWA
and TETSUO SHIMIZU
____________

Appeal 2009-004003
Application 10/385,907
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: November 23, 2009
____________

Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal 2009-004003
Application 10/385,907

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 8-15 and 17-20, which are all of the pending claims in the
application. (Appeal Brief filed July 31, 2007, hereinafter “App. Br.,” 2).
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
Appellants describe a liquid material evaporation supply apparatus.
Claims 8, 10, and 11 are representative of the claims on appeal, and recite:
8. In a liquid material evaporation supply apparatus with a
liquid material evaporation tank which accommodates a liquid
material and in which the liquid material is heated to generate a
predetermined gas, a liquid material supply pipe for supplying
the liquid material to the liquid material evaporation tank, and a
gas discharge pipe for discharging the gas generated in the
liquid material evaporation tank, the improvement comprising:

a heating device for heating exclusively the liquid
material evaporation tank is provided on the liquid material
evaporation tank;

a preheat device for preheating the liquid material
supplied to the liquid material evaporation tank through the
liquid material supply pipe;

a liquid flow regulation device for regulating the flow
rate of the liquid material that is to be supplied to the liquid
material evaporation tank are provided on the liquid material
supply pipe;

2
Appeal 2009-004003
Application 10/385,907

a heater device connected to the liquid flow regulation
device for maintaining the temperature of the liquid material to
a predetermined temperature;

a mass flow meter provided on the gas discharge pipe;

a mass flow meter heater;

a gas flow control valve includes a piezo valve with a
piezo actuator controlling a valve opening, independently
provided on the gas discharge pipe downstream of the mass
flow meter;

a gas flow control valve heater; and

computer means for automatically setting the
temperatures of the mass flow meter heater and the gas flow
control valve heater to higher temperatures then the heating
device for heating exclusively the liquid material evaporation
tank.

10. An evaporation supply apparatus for supplying gas
from a liquid material comprising:

a source of liquid material;

a supply conduit connected to the source of liquid
material;

a pre heater attached to the supply conduit;

a liquid material evaporation tank connected to the
supply conduit;

a mass flow controller connected to the supply conduit to
regulate the amount of liquid material flowing through the
supply conduit;

3
Appeal 2009-004003
Application 10/385,907

a first heater connected to the mass flow controller for
maintaining the liquid material at a predetermined temperature;

a second heater connected to the liquid material
evaporation tank for heating the liquid material to provide a gas
within the liquid material evaporation tank;

a gas discharge conduit connected to the liquid material
evaporation tank;

a mass flow meter connected to the gas discharge conduit
for controlling the flow of gas;

a third heater connected to the mass flow meter for
heating the gas to a predetermined temperature;

a gas flow control valve connected downstream of the
mass flow meter to the gas discharge conduit for regulating the
flow rate of gas at a high precision;

a fourth heater connected to the gas flow meter; and

a controller unit for monitoring the temperatures and the
mass flow meter to individually set the respective temperatures
of the pre heater, the first heater, the second heater, the third
heater and the fourth heater depending on the input of liquid
material from the mass flow controller and the output of gas
from the mass flow meter wherein the fourth heater is set to a
higher temperature than the second heater.

11. The evaporation supply apparatus of Claim 10
wherein the controller unit sets the third heater to a temperature
higher than the second heater.

4
Appeal 2009-004003
Application 10/385,907

THE REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Awaya US 5,462,014 Oct. 31, 1995
Ono US 5,865,421 Feb. 02, 1999
Loan US 6,296,711 B1 Oct. 02, 2001

The Examiner rejected claims 8-15 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Loan in view of Awaya and Ono.
The Examiner found that Loan discloses the apparatus recited in the
claims with the exception of, inter alia, a heater device connected to a liquid
flow regulation device. (Examiner’s Answer entered October 31, 2007,
hereinafter “Ans.,” 3-10). The Examiner found that Awaya discloses a mass
flow controller and heater in a CVD (chemical vapor deposition) apparatus.
(Ans. 10-11). The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to
add a heated zone mass flow controller to the liquid material feed line of
Loan in order to increase the vapor pressure of the process material as taught
by Awaya. (Ans. 12). The Examiner relied on Ono for the piezo valve and
actuator, as well as the gas flow control valve/mass flow meter arrangement
recited in the claims, concluding that it would have been obvious to add
Ono’s mass flow control meter and piezo valve/gas flow control valve to the
apparatus of Loan in view of Awaya in order to provide “accurate and
minute control of the rate of flow.” (Ans. 11-12).
Appellants contend that Loan does not suggest heating the liquid mass
flow controller because the mass flow controller 24 in Loan is not heated.
(App. Br. 6, 9, 20, and 21). Appellants argue that the portion of Awaya
relied on by the Examiner is concerned with heating an additive for a carrier
5
Appeal 2009-004003
Application 10/385,907

gas and does not address the features of the liquid material evaporation
supply apparatus recited in the claims. (App. Br. 11). Accordingly,
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s reason for combining Loan and
Awaya is deficient. (App. Br. 25-26, and 29). Appellants additionally
contend the Examiner has not adequately explained how the Ono reference
would be incorporated into the combination of Loan and Awaya. (App. Br.
12, 26, 27, and 30).

ISSUE
In view of Appellants’ contentions, the issue on appeal is: have
Appellants shown reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that the
recited apparatus would have been obvious over Loan in view of Awaya and
Ono?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following Findings of Fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.

1. Loan discloses a CVD apparatus where a precursor in liquid form
is stored in a reservoir 20 and fed into a vaporization chamber
through control of a dispensing valve 24. (Col. 7, ll. 13-34; Figs.
1a and 2a).
2. Loan discloses separate control zones (boxes 103, 105, 107, 109,
111, 113, 115, 117, and 119) that are independently heated with
separate cartridge heaters 121. (Col. 7, ll. 1-13, Fig. 1a and 1b).
6
Appeal 2009-004003
Application 10/385,907

3. Loan discloses a control valve 44 in Box 107, which is separate
from vaporization chamber 26 in Box 105. (Col. 11, ll. 12-50; Fig.
1a).
4. Loan discloses an objective of the invention is to prevent clogging.
(Col. 38, ll. 40-50).
5. Awaya discloses a CVD apparatus including a mass flow
controller 18 for a substance additive for a carrier gas, where the
mass flow controller 18 and an additive container 19 are housed in
a heating bath 20. (Col. 7, ll. 32-47; Fig. 2A).
6. Ono discloses an apparatus for fabrication of semiconductor
devices by CVD, including a valve structure having a piezo-
electric element, where the valve structure achieves accurate and
minute control of flow rate. (Col. 1, ll. 5-17; col. 5, ll. 2-15).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In KSR, the Supreme Court explained, “[w]hen a work is available in
one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt
variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). “A
person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.” Id. at 421.
In responding to a prima facie case of obviousness, one cannot show
non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections
are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
7
Appeal 2009-004003
Application 10/385,907

(CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
In an obviousness rejection, the combination of references must be
considered as a whole, rather than the specific teaching of each reference. In
re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971); In re Simon, 461 F.2d
1387, 1390 (CCPA 1972).

ANALYSIS
We confine our discussion to appealed claims 8, 10, and 11, which
contain claim limitations representative of the arguments made by
Appellants pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).1
Loan generally discloses the concept of providing separate heating
zones for components of a CVD apparatus, while Awaya specifically
discloses a heater for a mass flow controller in a CVD apparatus. (FF 1, 2
and 5). As stated by the Examiner, both Loan and Awaya disclose
Appellants’ core concept of heating gas lines to prevent condensation and
clogging of materials. (Ans. 29-30). Therefore, we are unpersuaded that
one of ordinary skill in the art, when viewing the prior art as a whole, would
not have applied Awaya’s mass flow controller 18 and heater to Loan’s
apparatus for temperature control of the liquid precursor during transfer
from reservoir 20 to vaporization chamber 26. Indeed, such a modification
is consistent with the general concept of Loan, that the temperature of the

1 Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in
this decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not
to make have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2009).
8
Appeal 2009-004003
Application 10/385,907

precursor liquid/gas is controlled throughout the process in separate control
zones.
In this regard, Appellants’ contentions that the Boxes 103, 105, and
107 in Loan are not heaters are without merit. (App. Br. 7). As even
Appellants acknowledge, Loan discloses that each zone represented by the
Boxes contains a cartridge heater. (App. Br. 18; FF 2). Moreover,
Appellants’ argument that Loan’s dispensing valve 24 is not a mass flow
controller does not consider the Examiner’s rejection as a whole. The
Examiner relies on Awaya for disclosing a mass flow controller. (See Ans.
11, 12, and 24). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
appreciated that providing an independently heated mass flow controller
would have been desirable in heating the liquid precursor during travel
between Loan’s liquid precursor reservoir and vaporization chamber.
We are also unpersuaded that Loan’s purpose of preventing
significant decomposition in a liquid precursor and Awaya’s purpose of
increasing vapor pressure would prevent one of ordinary skill in the art from
modifying Loan’s apparatus in the manner suggested by the Examiner. (See
App. Br. 28-29). We are in agreement with the Examiner that Appellants’
arguments focus on the specific processes rather than the structure of each
apparatus. (Ans. 16). In view of the above discussion, Appellants’
contentions that Loan teaches away from incorporating Awaya’s heated
mass flow controller and that the Examiner has failed to provide sufficient
reasons for combining the two references are not persuasive.
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in combining Ono with
Loan and Awaya because Loan discloses a different vaporizer. (App. Br.
26-27). Accordingly, Appellants contend that the Examiner failed to
9
Appeal 2009-004003
Application 10/385,907

adequately explain where or how Ono’s valve structure would replace or
modify a specific element in the system of Loan in view of Awaya. (App.
Br. 11, 12, and 30).
However, the Examiner proposed adding the mass flow meter and
piezo valve/gas flow control valve to the apparatus of Loan in view of
Awaya in order to achieve “accurate and minute control of the rate of flow.”
(Ans. 12, 18-19, FF 6). In addition, Appellants have failed to show error in
the Examiner’s statements that the difference in processes between Loan and
Awaya would not detract from the structural benefits gained in providing
accurate control of the rate of flow through the use of Ono’s valve structure.
(Ans. 30, 31). Appellants have also not provided any persuasive evidence
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been unable to add Ono’s
valve structure to the modified structure of Loan and Awaya as suggested by
the Examiner.
Appellants also contend that the claims require specific relative heater
settings in a computer such that the recited apparatus is structurally different
from the prior art. (App. Br. 16-17). The Examiner states Loan discloses an
equivalent to Appellants’ computer means in the form of a process module
controller. (Ans. 20-21). Appellants have not presented any persuasive
arguments to contradict the Examiner’s position that Loan’s process module
controller is equivalent to Appellants’ computer means. Moreover,
regarding the temperature settings in claim 11, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ arguments that Loan does not disclose a third heater to heat a
gas flow meter at a different temperature than a second heater used to heat
the vaporization chamber. (App. Br. 21-22). We agree with the Examiner,
that Loan discloses separate control zones for the vaporization chamber and
10
Appeal 2009-004003
Application 10/385,907

the gas flow meter in Boxes 105 and 107. (Ans. 25, FF 3). In addition, the
specific heater settings would depend on the particular process and
precursors applied in the CVD process to be carried out by the apparatus.
As such, the particular heater settings are a result-effective variable and
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. (See Ans. 25).
Appellants further contend that the control architectural diagram
disclosed in Loan does not compensate for Loan’s apparatus where any
predetermined temperature would be the same for the gas flow meter and
gas flow control valve. (App. Br. 22). Therefore, Appellants contend that
the Examiner’s motivation is deficient. (App. Br. 25). However, Appellants
have not shown error in any of the Examiner’s statements that the gas flow
meter and gas flow control valve in Loan would be non-uniform in
temperature due to different heat capacities and that Loan’s apparatus may
be heated non-uniformly to provide differential heating to compensate for
ambient temperature gradients. (Ans. 26 and 28).

CONCLUSION
Appellants have failed to demonstrate reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that the recited apparatus would have been obvious over Loan
in view of Awaya and Ono.

ORDER
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8-15 and 17-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Loan in view of Awaya
and Ono.
11
Appeal 2009-004003
Application 10/385,907

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. §1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

Ssl

SNELL & WILMER LLP (OC)
600 ANTON BOULEVARD
SUITE 1400
COSTA MESA, CA 92626

12