Ex Parte Smith et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 16, 2013

11245758 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/245,758 10/07/2005 Jacob W. Smith 007395 USA P 01
FEP/LPCVD
5314
44257 7590 12/17/2013
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX
3040 POST OAK BOULEVARD, SUITE 1500
HOUSTON, TX 77056
EXAMINER
ZERVIGON, RUDY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JACOB W. SMITH, SEAN M. SEUTTER,
R. SURYANARAYANAN IYER, BINH TRAN,
ALEXANDER TAM, and JAMES K. WILSON
____________________

Appeal 2012-011168
Application 11/245,758
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons presented by the Examiner in the Answer, we
AFFIRM.
Appeal 2012-011168
Application 11/245,758

2
Appellants accurately reproduce the rejections in their Brief (Br. 8).
Appellants’ arguments focus on the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Matsuki1 in view of Welch2 and Iwata3 (Br. 9-16).
Therefore, our focus is also on the rejection of claim 1. Claim 1 is directed
to an apparatus for deposition of a film on a semiconductor substrate (see
Claims App’x at Br. 18).
We have considered Appellants’ arguments and the evidence cited by
Appellants in the Brief in support of those arguments (Br. 9-16) as well as
the evidence, reasoning, and response to argument advanced by the
Examiner (Ans. 5-19). On balance, a preponderance of the evidence
supports the findings and conclusions of the Examiner (Ans. 5-19 and
citations therein). The Examiner’s Answer provides well-founded responses
to Appellants’ arguments in all respects, except one, which we address as
follows.
The Examiner relies upon Welch for a teaching of a slit valve liner
and Iwata for a heating element positioned to heat a portion of the exhaust
system that the Examiner acknowledges are not present in Matsuki (Ans. 5-
6). With regard to the heating element, the Examiner finds that Matsuki
teaches an exhaust system (lower conduit in Fig. 2) and further finds that
that Iwata teaches an apparatus for depositing a film on a semiconductor
substrate including a heating element 70 positioned to heat a portion of
Iwata’s exhaust system 69 (Ans. 6, citing Fig. 8). The Examiner concludes
that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to add a slit valve channel and liner to Matsuki

1 Matsuki et al., US 6,537,928 B1, patented Mar. 25, 2003.
2 Welch et al., US 6,192,827 B1, patented Feb. 27, 2001.
3 Iwata et al., US 5,753,891, patented May 19, 1998.
Appeal 2012-011168
Application 11/245,758

3
apparatus as taught by Welch and to add Iwata’s heating element (70; Figure
8) to heat Welch’s exhaust system.” (Id. (emphasis added).)
Appellants do not call out this error directly, but make the oblique
argument that “[t]he Examiner does not, however, assert that it would have
been obvious to modify the apparatus of Matsuki with the slit valve liner of
Welch and the heater of Iwata.” (Br. 11.)
While Appellants are technically correct, it is so clear from the
context of the rejection that the Examiner meant to refer to Matsuki in the
last clause that we cannot say that the error is a reversible error. Clearly,
Appellants knew, or should have known, that the Examiner meant to refer to
Matsuki, not Welch in the last clause. The Examiner found that Matsuki
includes an exhaust system and did not make any finding that Welch
included an exhaust system (Ans. 5-6).
Appellants have not identified a reversible error in any of the
Examiner’s rejections.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.

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)(1).

AFFIRMED
bar