Ex Parte Preti

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2018

13131011 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/131,0ll 05/24/2011
1009 7590 03/26/2018
KING & SCHICKLI, PLLC
800 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 200
LEXINGTON, KY 40503
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mario Preti
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
229-P-06 2428
EXAMINER
CROWELL, ANNA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
uspto@iplawl.net
laura@iplawl.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte MARIO PRETI
Appeal 201 7-003992
Application 13/131,011
Technology Center 1 700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEALl
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 7, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
obvious over Martin3 in view of Werdecker, 4 and adding various further prior
1 In explaining our Decision, we cite to the Specification of May 24, 2011
(Spec.), Final Office Action of October 1, 2015 (Final), Appeal Brief of March
4, 2016 (Appeal Br.), and Examiner's Answer of September 21, 2016 (Ans.).
2 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as LPE S.P.A. Br. 3.
3 Martin et al., EP 014 7967 A2, published July 10, 1985.
4 Werdecker et al., WO 2008/040615 Al, published April 10, 2008. As
Appellant has not objected to the Examiner's use of US 2009/0266110 as the
English language equivalent, we also rely on and cite to US 2009/0266110.
Appeal 2017-003992
Application 13/131,011
art references to reject claims 4-6, 8, and 11. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The claims are directed to a reaction chamber including a reflecting
layer covering the outside of a hollow quartz piece section of the reaction
chamber. Br. 18 (claims appendix, claim 1). The reflecting layer is made
from a quartz-based material and is obtained from a semiliquid slurry of
dispersed amorphous quartz particles. Id. The slurry is applied, dried, and
hot sintered. Id. The reflecting layer has a thickness in the range of 0.5 mm
to 1.5 mm and is capable of reflecting back infrared radiation within the
wavelength range of 1,000 nm to 10,000 nm at an average reflectivity of 70-
90%. Id. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A reaction chamber of an epitaxial reactor consisting
essentially of
a hollow quartz piece, wherein said hollow quartz piece
comprises a quartz piece section having the shape of a cylinder
or a prism or a cone or a pyramid and an axial through hole
provided in said quartz piece section, wherein said quartz piece
section is adapted to define, according to two of three directions,
a reaction and deposition zone and to house at least one
susceptor to be heated inside said axial through hole,
wherein said chamber comprises a reflecting layer
adapted to reflect back infrared radiations emitted by said
susceptor in the wavelength range between 1'000 nm and 10'000
nm wherein said reflecting layer is made of a quartz-based
material, and wherein said reflecting layer is applied to said
quartz piece section and/or to a quartz component of said
reaction chamber;
wherein said quartz piece section has an outside and said
reflecting layer is located on the outside of said quartz piece
section and covers it;
wherein said reflecting layer has a thickness in the range
of 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm;
2
Appeal 2017-003992
Application 13/131,011
wherein said reflecting layer is obtained from a semiliquid
slurry having a content of dispersed amorphous quartz particles,
that is applied, dried and hot sintered,
whereby said obtained reflecting layer is capable of
reflecting back the infrared radiations within said wavelength
range at an average reflectivity of 70-90%.
Br. 18 (claims appendix, claim 1) (formatting added).
Appellant argues the claims and rejections as a group, focusing on the
rejection of claim 1. Br. 10. Thus, we confine our discussion to the rejection
of claim 1.
OPINION
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over Martin in view of
W erdecker. Final 2.
There is no dispute that Martin discloses a reaction chamber including
a reflective layer covering the outside of a hollow quartz piece section or that
the reflective layer is made of a quartz-based material. Compare Br. 10-15,
with Final 2-3. Martin depicts such a structure in Figure 9, which shows a
reflective layer 7 4 covering a hollow quartz piece section (inner quartz bell jar
61). Martin 27:1-3. The configuration with the reflective layer on the
outside of the quartz piece section is also shown in Figure 7, which shows
reflecting layer 55 on chamber wall 51. Martin 19:16-18.
The Examiner acknowledges that Martin fails to teach forming the
reflecting layer from a semi-liquid slurry of dispersed amorphous quartz
particles that is applied, dried, and hot sintered or forming the layer to the
thickness of 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm. Final 3. The Examiner, however, concludes
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make
Martin's reflecting layer from the quartz slurry of W erdecker at a thickness
within the range of claim 1 because Werdecker shows that the slurry
3
Appeal 2017-003992
Application 13/131,011
material and thicknesses were conventional for producing diffusely reflecting
reflectors of quartz glass. Final 4.
Appellant contends the combination of Werdecker is improper because
Werdecker is non-analogous art, the teachings of Werdecker are incompatible
with Martin, and Martin teaches away from its combination with Werdecker.
Br. 10-17.
Non-Analogous Art
We begin with the question of whether Werdecker is analogous art.
We begin here because we must determine the scope and content of the art
before considering the question of whether the reaction chamber of the claims
would have been obvious from the combined teachings of Martin and
Werdecker. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (explaining
that determining what is "prior art" is a prerequisite to determining whether
any difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art would
have been obvious). As stated in Clay:
Two criteria have evolved for determining whether prior
art is analogous: (1) whether the art is from the same field of
endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the
reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor,
whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which the inventor is involved.
Clay, 966 F.2d at 658-59.
The Examiner finds that Werdecker is reasonably pertinent to
Appellant's problem. Ans. 5. Appellant contends that Werdecker is not
pertinent to the problems of epitaxial reactors and is, thus, non-analogous
art. Br. 16.
A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's finding. The
Examiner finds that Werdecker "addresses the same problem of using
reflective layers and improving reflectivity of a reflective material." Ans. 5.
We agree. Appellant's field of endeavor relates to reaction chambers of
4
Appeal 2017-003992
Application 13/131,011
epitaxial reactors, but the problem Appellant is attempting to solve is a
problem with the reflective layer conventionally placed on the hollow quartz
piece section of the chamber. Spec. 1:3, 2:9-15, 3:13-18. According to the
Specification, Appellant was attempting to solve a problem with the gold-
based reflective layer of the prior art. Spec. 3:13-18, 4:1-8. The problem was
that the gold layer would detach from the quartz surface of the reaction
chamber. Spec. 4:1-8. Thus, Appellant was seeking a replacement reflective
layer.
"A reference is reasonably pertinent if ... it is one which, because of
the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an
inventor's attention in considering his problem." In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656,
659 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In considering the reflective layer detachment problem,
those of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to other reflective
materials with reflective properties similar to gold and compatible with the
quartz of the reaction chamber. Werdecker discloses a quartz-based silicon
dioxide slurry that can be coated onto a carrier to form an optical reflector
with enhanced reflection in the infrared range. Werdecker iii! 6, 33. A
preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's finding that
Werdecker is reasonably pertinent to the problem facing Appellant, is
analogous art, and, thus, within the scope and content of the prior art to be
considered when determining obviousness.
Obviousness of the Difference: Reason to Combine
Given that Werdecker is analogous art to be considered in determining
obviousness, the next question arising is: Has Appellant identified a
reversible error in the Examiner's finding of a reason to use Werdecker's
slurry-based silicon dioxide material in Martin's reflective layer?
Appellant has not identified such an error.
5
Appeal 2017-003992
Application 13/131,011
The Examiner finds a reason to use Werdecker's slurry-based reflective
material in Martin's reflective layer based on conventionally known
attributes Werdecker teaches for the slurry-based silicon dioxide. Final 3-4.
Martin discloses that the outside reflective layer 55 of the Figure 7
embodiment is designed to radiate a substantial percentage of the energy
radiated from the front surface of the susceptor 52 and wafers 54. Martin
20:1-6. Martin wishes to minimize radiant heat loss from the front side of
the wafers and reduce the thermal gradient within the wafers. Martin 20:6-
22. The susceptor radiates infrared radiation at wavelengths between about
0.5 microns and 5 microns with the highest intensity of radiation being in the
1-3 micron range. Id. About 75% of the radiated infrared energy is in the
0.5 micron to 4 micron band. Id. Thus, Martin would seek a reflective
material that reflects a substantial percentage of the infrared radiation in the
disclosed wavelengths to minimize heat loss and reduce the thermal gradient.
Indeed, Martin discloses that "[c]oating 55 is preferably formed to have
a high reflectance value for infrared radiation in that band" and suggests
that there are "[a] number of suitable metal layers" and these include a gold
plated layer. Martin 20:32-21:7. According to Martin, a plated gold layer
will reflect about 97% of all energy in the 0.5 to 4 micron band. Id. Martin
discloses that the other metals have a very high reflectivity for infrared
radiation in the 0.5 to 4 micron band, id., but does not disclose any restriction
on the useful reflectivity percentage or, for that matter, disclose any
percentage of average reflectivity in the 1,000 nm to 10,000 nm wavelength
range for the outer reflective layer.
Martin further states that "any type of infrared reflecting coating
design may be utilized, including multiple layer optical coatings which are
designed to have high reflection in the near infrared over a relatively broad
band of wavelengths." Martin 22:15-20. Thus, Martin does not limit the
reflective layer material to metals. Nor does Martin define "high reflection."
6
Appeal 2017-003992
Application 13/131,011
When describing a different embodiment in which the reflective layer
is formed on the inner surface of the chamber wall, Martin discloses that gold
cannot be used, but other metals that have low chemical activity and
contamination effect on silicon wafers may be used as can a layer of silicon.
Martin 23:4-28. Pure silicon, according to Martin, has an average reflectivity
greater than 30% over the infrared wavelengths radiated by the susceptor.
Martin 23:14-28. Martin further discloses inner coatings of multi-layer
reflective materials such as a metal layer coated by a dielectric layer such as
silicon dioxide and a preferred embodiment employing alternative layers of
silicon and silicon dioxide. Martin 23:20-24: 12. Martin further discloses an
inner reflective coating using six layers, each about 0.5 microns thick to
produce a coating with an average reflectivity of about 60% in the wavelength
region between 0.6-2.6 microns. Martin 24:4-12. Martin further discloses
that, in providing an infrared coating on the inner surface of the reactor, it is
preferred to tailor the degree of reflectance and absorption of infrared energy
so some energy is absorbed into the chamber walls to achieve effective cool
down after wafer processing. Martin 24:13-32.
Martin's disclosure of silicon dioxide reflective layers suggests that
silicon dioxide coatings were known to be reflective.
Appellant contends that Martin teaches away from its combination
with Werdecker. Br. 10-12. We disagree. "The combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no
more than yield predictable results." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 416 (2007). As stated above, Martin suggests that silicon dioxide
materials are useful in reflective layers on quartz reaction chambers.
Werdecker also suggests that silicon dioxide coatings are useful as reflective
layers on quartz carriers. Werdecker iii! 6, 51. The use of Werdecker's silicon
dioxide reflective material would have been obvious because it would have
been expected to predictably provide the reflectivity desired by Martin.
7
Appeal 2017-003992
Application 13/131,011
Much of Appellant's argument concerns Martin's teaching of a
preferred inner multilayer coating of alternating silicon and silicon dioxide
layers with an average reflectivity of about 60%. Br. 10-12. The argument is
not persuasive because it is directed to the embodiment with an inner
reflective layer, not the embodiment with the outer reflective layer.
Martin's teachings, in fact, support the Examiner's conclusion of
obviousness. Martin discloses a variety of materials for use in the reflective
layer and does not limit the selection. Martin 20:32-21:7. Although Martin
discloses using a gold layer with 97% reflectivity in the 0.5 to 4 micron band,
Martin 21:2-4, Martin neither discloses the average reflectivity percentage
for the 1,000 nm to 10,000 nm wavelength range nor places limits on the
range of average reflectivity.
The combination of Martin and Werdecker suggests applying a slurry
of silicon dioxide to the reaction chamber of Martin to form a reflective layer
having the average reflectivity of 70-90% required by claim 1. Werdecker
teaches using a slurry-based silicon dioxide reflective layer. The layer formed
in Werdecker's example 1 has a reflection of around 95% in the wavelength
range between about 300 nm and 2100 nm. Werdecker if 92. The Examiner
states that "it is conventionally known in the art, that the average reflectivity
of quartz material to be lowered when operating in the mid-Infrared
wavelength range (i.e. over 3000 nm)" and finds that the average reflectivity
of Werdecker's silicon dioxide reflective layer would be within the range of
the claims, i.e., an average reflectivity of 70-90% over wavelengths of 1000-
10,000 nm as required by claim 1. Ans. 3. Appellant does not dispute this
finding. No reply brief was filed.
Appellant further contends that the scale of the reflective layer taught
by Werdecker is not compatible with the invention of Martin. Br. 12-15.
This is because, according to Appellant, Werdecker's reflective layer has
thicknesses one thousand times greater than the thickness Martin discloses
8
Appeal 2017-003992
Application 13/131,011
for the silicon/silicon dioxide alternating layer reflective coating. Br. 13.
This argument is not persuasive because the ordinary artisan would have
performed routine experimentation to determine the workable or optimal
thicknesses of the slurry-based reflective layer for use on the reaction
chamber of Martin and because Werdecker's disclosure that "[t]ypical layer
thicknesses are in the range of 0.2 mm to 3 mm" (Werdecker if 52) provides
evidence that the workable thicknesses would overlap the 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm
range of claim 1. Moreover, the ordinary artisan would have adjusted the
apparatus as necessary to accommodate the coating thickness.
Appellant has not identified a reversible error in the Examiner's
finding of a reason to use Werdecker's slurry-based silicon dioxide material in
Martin's reflective layer to form a reflective layer of a thickness or average
reflectivity within the range of claim 1.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
1, 7, 9, 10 § 103(a) Martin, 1, 7, 9, 10
Werdecker
4, 11 § 103(a) Martin, 4, 11
W erdecker, Maul
5, 6 § 103(a) Martin, 5, 6
Werdecker,
0 liari
8 § 103(a) Martin, 8
Werdecker,
Leone, Kant
Summar 1, 4-11
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
9
Appeal 2017-003992
Application 13/131,011
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
10