Ex Parte Oda et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 29, 2007

10181651 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 29, 2007)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MICHIAKI ODA,
KAZUYA NAKAGAWA,
HIDEAKI MATSUSHIMA,
HIDETOSHI SEKI and
TOSHIRO HAYASHI
____________

Appeal 2007-4329
Application 10/181,651
Technology Center 1765
____________

Decided: November 29, 2007
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and
PETER F. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, and 6.
Claim 1 is illustrative:

Appeal 2007-4329
Application 10/181,641

1. A cleaned pulling room installed with a plurality of single crystal
pulling apparatuses, having a plurality of operation floors and supplied with
clean air as a down flow from a ceiling or an upper position neighboring the
ceiling, wherein at least three operation floors are provided depending on
degrees of cleanness required for operations performed on each of the floors,
the degrees of cleanness required are divided by the down flow and each of
the floors, the degree of cleanness required in an upper story is higher than
that on a lower story, and the plurality of single crystal pulling apparatuses
are installed without being compartmentalized in the room.

In addition to the Admitted Prior Art found at pages 1-3 of the present
Specification, the Examiner relies upon the following references in the
rejection of the appealed claims:
Sakauchi '354 5,641,354 Jun. 24, 1997
Sakauchi '522 5,702,522 Dec. 30, 1997

Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a cleaned pulling room for
a plurality of single crystal pulling apparatuses. The room has at least three
operation floors that are supplied with clean air that flows down from a
ceiling or upper position near the ceiling. The three operation floors are
provided with different degrees of cleanness as a result of the down flow of
air through the three floors. The degree of cleanness for an upper story is
required to be higher than the degree of cleanness in a lower story. Also, the
plurality of single crystal pulling apparatuses are installed without being
compartmentalized in the room.
Appealed claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Sakauchi ‘522. The appealed claims also
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
Admitted Prior Art in view of Sakauchi ‘354.
2
Appeal 2007-4329
Application 10/181,641

We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for
patentability. However, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the
Examiner's reasoned analysis and application of the prior art, as well as his
cogent disposition of the arguments raised by Appellants. Accordingly, we
will sustain the Examiner's rejections for the reasons set forth in the Answer,
which we incorporate herein, and we add the following for emphasis only.
We consider first the § 102 rejection of the appealed claims. We find
no error in the Examiner's factual findings with respect to Sakauchi ‘522.
As set forth by the Examiner, Sakauchi ‘522, like Appellants, discloses a
cleaned pulling room that may contain a plurality of single crystal pulling
apparatus (see col. 1, ll. 5-25 and col. 6, ll. 35-45). Also, Sakauchi ‘522
discloses three operation floors, operator floor 48, maintenance floor 52, and
a base floor 32. In addition, there is no dispute that Sakauchi ‘522 describes
a crystal puller cell wherein the cleanness required in an upper story, clean
aisle 114, is higher than the cleanness in a lower story, maintenance aisle
116, and base floor 32. Consequently, we concur with the Examiner that
there is no structural distinction between pulling room within the scope of
the appealed claims and those fairly described by Sakauchi ‘522. Moreover,
although Sakauchi ‘522 does operate the disclosed apparatus such that there
is a higher degree of cleanness in an upper story relative to a lower story, we
agree with the Examiner that Appellants' claim language describing such is a
statement of intended use that does not further define the structure
encompassed by the appealed claims.
Appellants maintain that "in the crystal puller cell of Sakauchi '522,
the degree of cleanness cannot be divided by a down flow and the three
3
Appeal 2007-4329
Application 10/181,641

floors, as in the case of the present invention" (Br. 6, last para.). However,
as explained by the Examiner, "the claim does not require each of the three
floors has a different degree of cleanness" (Ans. 9, second para.). The
appealed claims only require the presence of three operation floors provided
with a down flow of clean air wherein greater cleanness is required in an
upper story than that in a lower story. We do not perceive how this claim
recitation distinguishes the claimed structure over the Sakauchi ‘522
structure.
Appellants also maintain that "[i]nherently, in the puller cell of
Sakauchi '522, a high degree of cleanness is maintained on the operator floor
48 only when the door 64 is opened" (Br. 7, third para.). However, as
pointed out by the Examiner, the claims on appeal are "open" to the
inclusion of doors of the type disclosed by Sakauchi ‘522. In any event,
even when the doors of Sakauchi ‘522 are open, there would still be a degree
of cleanness in the upper, operator story that is higher than the degree of
cleanness in the lower maintenance and base stories. While Appellants
contend that the pulling room of the present invention is entirely different
than the puller cell of Sakauchi ‘522, any such differences are not reflected
in the appealed claims. We agree with the Examiner that Sakauchi ‘522
"teaches all the claimed structural limitations" for an apparatus that "is
capable of the claimed intended use of dividing the degree of cleanness
using the down flow and the floors" (Ans. 13, first para.).
Concerning the § 103 rejection of the appealed claims over the
Admitted Prior Art in combination with Sakauchi ‘354, we find that the
Examiner's legal conclusion of obviousness is well founded. As
4
Appeal 2007-4329
Application 10/181,641

acknowledged by the Examiner, although the apparatus of the Admitted
Prior Art comprises several pulling apparatuses for semiconductor single
crystals installed in one pulling room, and the apparatus comprises two
stories with the upper story requiring a higher degree of cleanness. The
apparatus for the Admitted Prior Art does not comprise three operational
floors. However, based on the Sakauchi ‘354 disclosure, we are convinced
that the Examiner properly concluded that it would have been obvious for
one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of the Admitted Prior
Art such that the upper operation floor is divided into an upper operation
floor and a lower maintenance floor so that the maintenance floor can be
maintained at a lower degree of cleanness that allows for a reduction in
costs. We note that Appellants base no argument upon objective evidence of
nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, which would serve to rebut the
prima facie case of obviousness established by the Examiner. In particular,
Appellants have proffered no objective evidence which establishes that
apparatus within the scope of the appealed claims produce unexpected
results compared to the apparatus of Sakauchi ‘354 and the Admitted Prior
Art.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner's decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.

5
Appeal 2007-4329
Application 10/181,641

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(vi)(effective Sept.
13, 2004).
AFFIRMED

cam

HOGAN & HARTSON LLP
1999 AVENUE OF THE STARS
SUITE 1400
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
6