Ex Parte Selvamanickam et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 6, 2012

11324511 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 6, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte VENKAT SELVAMANICKAM and HEE-GYOUN LEE
____________

Appeal 2011-008744
Application 11/324,511
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.

DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
App
App

App
claim
temp
the e
ll. 10
(chem
repro
Figu
(e.g.
is tet

1 Ap
Acti
eal 2011-0
lication 11
Venkat S
ellants”) ap
s 69, 73,
We REV

The inve
erature su
lectric pow
-15, 23-28
ical vapo
duced bel
re 1 above
, metal ß-d
ramethylh

peal Brief
on mailed
08744
/324,511
elvamani
peal unde
76-81, and
ERSE.
ST
ntion relat
perconduc
er system
. Figure
r depositi
ow:
depicts, in
iketonates
eptanedion

filed Nove
May 21, 2
ckam and
r 35 U.S.C
83.1 We
ATEMEN
es to a me
ting (HTS
technolog
1, which is
on) appara
ter alia, a
such as M
e, and y i

mber 22,
010.
2
Hee-Gyou
. § 134(a)
have jurisd
T OF TH
thod for m
) conducto
y. Specif
a schema
tus that m
CVD app
(thd)y wh
s presumab
2010 (here
n Lee (her
from a fin
iction und
E CASE
anufactur
r, which i
ication (he
tic illustra
ay be used
aratus 10
ere M may
ly the val
inafter “B
einafter “t
al rejectio
er 35 U.S
ing a high
s said to b
reinafter “
ting a CVD
in the inv
in which p
be Y, Ba
ence of M
r.”); Final
he
n of
.C. § 6(b).
e useful in
Spec.”) 1,

ention, is

recursor
, or Cu, th
) flows
Office

d
Appeal 2011-008744
Application 11/324,511

3
from precursor supply 16 into a reactor 12 through longitudinal flow
distributor 26 and, via chemical reactions that occur at the surface of the
substrate, HTS material deposits on heated elongate substrate 18 to form
superconducting material. Spec. 2, l. 25 to 3, l. 2; 4, l. 26 to 5, l. 5; 9, ll. 9-
19.
Claim 69 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced as follows:
69. A method for manufacturing a high temperature
superconducting conductor, said method comprising the steps
of:
a) providing an elongate substrate to a reactor, the
elongate substrate having a major axis, the reactor having a
longitudinal flow distributor, the longitudinal flow distributor
having a top portion including an entrance, a bottom portion
including a plurality of exits, and an internal distribution
member provided between the top portion and the bottom
portion, wherein the internal distribution member (i) includes a
thickness, a width greater than the thickness, and a length
greater than the width, and a plurality of through passages
arranged non-uniformly along the length of the internal
distribution member, and (ii) has no through passages aligned
with the entrance;
b) shielding a first and second low temperature regions of
the substrate with a first and second shield;
c) heating at least a portion of the substrate, located
between the first and second low temperature regions, to a
temperature sufficient to facilitate the formation of one of (i) a
predecessor to a superconducting material and (ii) a
superconducting material; and
d) flowing at least one precursor into the longitudinal
flow distributor through the entrance, past the internal
distribution member and out through the plurality of exits
thereby longitudinally distributing a flow of the at least one
precursor so as to communicate the at least one precursor with
Appeal 2011-008744
Application 11/324,511

4
the heated at least a portion of the substrate so as to permit the
formation of said one of (i) a predecessor to a superconducting
material and (ii) a superconducting material, wherein the major
axis of the elongate substrate is perpendicular to the flow as the
flow exits the longitudinal flow distributor;
wherein the first and second shields substantially prevent
flowing at least one precursor onto the first and second low
temperature regions.
Br. 15, Claims App’x (emphasis added). Claim 73, the only other
independent claim, also recites the same limitations regarding the “internal
distribution member.”
The Examiner rejected claims 69, 73, 75-81, and 83 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over “Ignatiev[2] . . . or Kim[3] . . . in combination
with Van Buskirk[4] . . . or Janakiraman[5] . . . further in combination with
Yoshida[6] . . . still further in combination with Ahn[7] . . . still further in
combination with Katz[8] . . . or Blonigan[9] . . . .” Examiner’s Answer
mailed January 21, 2011 (hereinafter “Ans.”) 3-7.10

[2] United States Patent Application Publication US 2004/0023810 A1
published on February 5, 2004.
[3] United States Patent 3,573,978 issued on April 6, 1971.
[4] United States Patent 6,010,748 issued on January 4, 2000.
[5] United States Patent Application Publication 2004/0060514 A1published
on April 1, 2004.
[6] United States Patent 5,206,216 issued on April 27, 1993.
[7] United States Patent Application Publication 2005/0034662 A1 published
on February 17, 2005.
[8] United States Patent 6,677,712 B2 issued on January 13, 2004
[9] United States Patent 7,270,713 B2 issued on September 18, 2007 and
based on Application 10/337,483 filed on January 7, 2003.
10 The Examiner withdrew a final rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, ¶ 1, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Ans. 2; Final Office Action 2; Br. 7-8. Therefore, this rejection is not before
us.
Appeal 2011-008744
Application 11/324,511

5
ISSUE
The Examiner acknowledged, inter alia, that neither Ignatiev nor Kim
describes an “internal distribution member,” as recited in the claims. Ans. 5.
Relying on Van Buskirk and Janakiraman, however, the Examiner
concluded that “it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art . . . to
have modified Ignatiev . . . or Kim . . . process to include a
showerhead/nozzle/distribution head having an internal distribution member
. . . to supply a more evenly [sic] gaseous flow of the precursor to the
substrate resulting in a more uniform coating.” Ans. 5. As to the limitations
in the independent claims that the “internal distribution member” includes a
“plurality of through passages arranged non-uniformly along [its] length”
but “has no through passages aligned with the [gas] entrance,” Br. 15 (claim
69), the Examiner relied on the teachings of Ahn. Ans. 6. According to the
Examiner,
it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art . . . to
have modified Ignatiev . . . or Kim . . . in combination with
Van Buskirk . . . or Janakiraman . . . further in combination
with Yoshida . . . showerhead to incorporate a non-uniform
hole pattern having no holes aligned with the gas entrance as
evidenced by Ahn . . . with the expectation of achieving
similar success, i.e. a more uniform thickness as well as
saving gas and speeding up [the] deposition process (see
abstract).

Id.
The Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s conclusion that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine
Ignatiev or Kim with Van Buskirk or Janakiraman. Br. 8-13. Rather, the
Appellants’ principal contention is that the Examiner’s rejection is flawed
Appeal 2011-008744
Application 11/324,511

6
because “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art, using the teachings of
Janakiraman to achieve a uniform flow and uniform thickness of the
deposited film, would not have been motivated to incorporate the teachings
of Ahn to achieve a purpose (uniform thickness of the film) already achieved
by the teachings of Van Buskirk or Janakiraman.” (Br. 10).
Thus, a dispositive issue arising from these contentions is:
Did the Examiner err by failing to provide some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the conclusion that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have combined Ahn with Ignatiev, Kim, Van
Buskirk, and/or Janakiraman to arrive at a method encompassed by the
independent claims?

DISCUSSION
We agree with the Appellants that the Examiner erred.
The Supreme Court of the United States approved our reviewing
court’s approach to obviousness that “‘there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.’” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The Supreme
Court further stated that “a patent composed of several elements is not
proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was,
independently, known in the prior art.” Id.
Although common sense directs one to look with care at a
patent application that claims . . . the combination of two
known devices according to their established functions, it can
be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a
person of ordinary skill . . . to combine the elements in the
way the claimed new invention does.
Appeal 2011-008744
Application 11/324,511

7

Id. While the Supreme Court warned against “[r]igid preventative rules that
deny factfinders recourse to common sense,” it stated that the “factfinder
should be aware . . . of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be
cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning.” KSR, 550 U.S. at
421.
As best understood, the Examiner’s position appears to be that Ahn’s
Abstract teaches the additional advantages of saving gas and speeding up the
deposition by providing a showerhead with a non-uniform hole pattern
having no holes aligned with the gas entrance, thus providing a reason that
would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify
the combination of Ignatiev or Kim with Van Buskirk of Janakiraman. Ans.
6, 8. That conclusion is based on an erroneous finding of fact.
Ahn teaches CVD systems for integrated circuits including, inter alia,
a gas distribution member with gas-distribution holes or orifices. ¶¶ [0002]
– [0009]. Ahn’s Figures 1 and 2 are reproduced below:
App
App

eal 2011-0
lication 11
08744
/324,511
8

Appeal 2011-008744
Application 11/324,511

9
Specifically, Ahn’s Figures 1 and 2 above depict a deposition reactor and a
gas-distribution fixture, respectively, wherein the reactor includes, inter alia,
a gas-distribution member 132 with gas-distribution orifices 132.1 that are
not uniformly arranged and are not aligned with gas inlet 136. ¶¶ [0010],
[0011], [0019].
Ahn also teaches:
One exemplary CVD system includes an outer chamber, a
substrate holder, and a unique gas-distribution fixture. The
fixture includes a gas-distribution surface having holes for
dispensing a gas and a gas-confinement member that engages or
cooperates with the substrate holder to form an inner chamber
within the outer chamber. The inner chamber has a smaller
volume than the outer chamber, which not only facilitates
depositions of more uniform thickness, but also saves gas and
speeds up the deposition process.
Abst. (emphasis added).
Contrary to the Examiner’s position, these facts reveal that Ahn does
not attribute gas savings or speeding up of the deposition process to any non-
uniform hole pattern having no holes aligned with the gas entrance. Rather,
Ahn plainly states that these advantages result from an inner chamber having
a smaller volume relative to an outer chamber. Therefore, the Examiner’s
articulated reasoning for further modification of the combination of Ignatiev
or Kim with Van Buskirk or Janakiraman is not based any rational
underpinning.
Because the Examiner did not otherwise account for the disputed
claim limitations, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection.

Appeal 2011-008744
Application 11/324,511

10
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 69, 73, 75-81, and 83 is
reversed.

REVERSED

tc