Ex Parte Sofin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 24, 2017

14032261 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
14/032,261 09/20/2013 Mikhail SOFIN W1154/20085 8794
3000 7590
CAESAR RIVISE, PC
7 Penn Center, 12th Floor
1635 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2212
05/26/2017 EXAMINER
SILVERMAN, STANLEY S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1736
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/26/2017 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):
patents @ crbcp .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIKHAIL SOFIN1
Appeal 2016-004938
Application 14/032,261
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1—3, 5, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Claims 1 and 5 are representative of the claimed invention:
1. A process for deposition of polycrystalline silicon,
comprising:
1 Appellant identifies Wacker Chemie AG as the real party in interest (Br.
2).
Appeal 2016-004938
Application 14/032,261
(a) introduction of a reaction gas containing a silicon-
containing component and hydrogen into a reactor so as to
deposit polycrystalline silicon in the form of rods, and
(b) passing into the reactor, after the deposition
operation has ended, a gas which attacks silicon or silicon
compounds which flows around the polycrystalline silicon rods
and an inner reactor wall in order to dissolve silicon-containing
particles which are formed in the course of deposition and
adhere on an inner reactor wall or on the polycrystalline silicon
rods before the polycrystalline silicon rods are removed from
the reactor, wherein the gas which attacks silicon or silicon
compounds comprises a mixture of one or more chlorosilanes
and H2, wherein the mixture comprises either H2 and
trichlorosilane or H2, trichlorosilane (TCS) and dichlorosilane
(DCS) in the amount of 90-99 mol% of H2, 1-10 mol% of TCS
and 0-2 mol% of DCS, wherein a partial flow rate of the
chlorosilanes totaling 0.005-0.2 kmol/h per 1 m2 of a surface
area of the polycrystalline silicon rods and the temperature of
the polycrystalline silicon rods being 1100-1400°C.
5. A process for deposition of polycrystalline silicon,
comprising:
(a) introduction of a reaction gas containing a silicon-
containing component and hydrogen into a reactor so as to
deposit polycrystalline silicon in the form of rods, and
(b) passing into the reactor, after the deposition operation
has ended, a gas which attacks silicon or silicon compounds
which flows around the polycrystalline silicon rods and an
inner reactor wall in order to dissolve silicon-containing
particles which are formed in the course of deposition and
adhere on an inner reactor wall or on the polycrystalline silicon
rods before the polycrystalline silicon rods are removed from
the reactor, wherein the gas which attacks silicon or silicon
compounds comprises HC1 and a temperature of the
polycrystalline silicon rods is 500-1000°C, wherein the gas
which attacks silicon or silicon compounds comprises a mixture
of HCl and If in an amount of 20 to 80 mol% of HCl, wherein
the partial flow rate of the hydrogen chloride totaling 0.001 to
2
Appeal 2016-004938
Application 14/032,261
0.1 kmol/h per 1 m2 of a surface area of the polycrystalline
silicon rods.
(Emphasis added).
The Examiner maintains the following rejections under pre-AIA
U.S.C. 103(a):
Claim 1 as unpatentable over Kirii (US 2010/0269754 Al, pub. Oct.
28, 2010) in view of Reuschel ’931 (US 4,148,931, iss. Apr. 10, 1979);
Claims 2 and 3 as being unpatentable over Kirii in view of Reuschel
’931, and Reuschel ’523 (US 3,099,523, iss. July 30, 1963);
Claim 5 as unpatentable over Kirii, Kim ’248 (US 6,395,248 Bl, iss.
May 28, 2002), and Kim ’710 (US 2009/0095710 Al, pub. Apr. 16, 2009);
and
Claims 21 and 22 as unpatentable over Kirii, Kim ’248,
Kim ’710, and Reuschel ’523.
Appellant presents arguments that focus on each of independent
claims 1 and 5 (see Br. generally). Appellant does not separately argue
dependent claims 2, 3, 21, and 22 (Br. 11, 12).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for patentability.
Having done so, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports
the Examiner’s determination that the subject matter of each independent
claim is unpatentable within the meaning of § 103. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection for essentially those reasons expressed in the Final
Action and Answer, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
“[T]he PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction
consistent with the specification. . . . Therefore, we look to the specification
3
Appeal 2016-004938
Application 14/032,261
to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad
interpretation.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2007). “[A]s applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope,
a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the
applicant or patentee.” Id.
Appellant’s main argument with respect to claim 1 is that Kirii does
not disclose an etching process wherein gas introduced after the deposition
process ends attacks contaminant silicon particles on the reactor walls (Br.
6), and urges that this gas is a further addition of gas for etching purposes
(Br. 8). Appellant also points to the comparative example in their
Specification as representative of a process similar to that of Kirii, with the
inventive Example 2 showing only a small reduction in the reactor wall
reflection versus the comparative example, and a greater reaction yield than
the comparative example (Br. 8,9). These arguments are not persuasive of
reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection.
As pointed out by the Examiner, the plain language of the claim does
not require additional gas to be introduced after the deposition process (e.g.,
Ans. 4). See In re Self 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“Many of
appellant’s arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on
limitations appearing in the claims.”). Contrary to Appellant’s position, we
agree with the Examiner that the plain language of the claim does not require
additional gas to be introduced for the etching step; step (b)’s “passing into
the reactor ... a gas” may be the same gas as introduced in step (a),
especially in light of Appellant’s Specification (Ans. 4, pointing out that the
Appellant’s Specification states that the same mixture of chlorosilanes may
be used for both the deposition step and the cleaning step). Appellant has
4
Appeal 2016-004938
Application 14/032,261
not directed our attention to any limiting definitions in the Specification, or
to any persuasive reasoning or credible evidence, to establish that the
Examiner’s interpretation of the language of claim 1 is unreasonable.
Appellant has also not directed us to any evidence or persuasive technical
reasoning to refute the Examiner’s position that at least some etching (i.e.,
attacking/dissolving) of silicon deposits on the wall will occur in the
conditions of the applied Kirii/Reuschl ‘931 combination (Ans. 5; Br.
generally).
Further, as pointed out by the Examiner, Example 2 of the
Specification is not commensurate in scope with claim 1, since Example 2
includes a purging between step (a) and step (b); no such purging step is
recited in claim 1 (Ans. 6).
Appellant does not present any separate arguments for dependent
claims 2 and 3 (Br. 10). Accordingly, the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of
claims 1—3 are sustained.
In contrast to claim 1, claim 5 requires that the etching/attack gas
comprises HC1 and hydrogen. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 relies on
Kirii, Kim ’248 and Kim ’710 (Final Action 5—7). As even admitted by
Appellant, Kim ’710 teaches the use of an etching step using HC1 and
hydrogen to remove silicon deposits on reactor walls (Br. 10, 11). Appellant
argues, however, that Kim ’710 teaches that the hydrogen diluent gas may
not exceed 2—3 times the HC1 and thus the claimed HC1 concentration of
claim 5 (i.e., 20 to 80 mol% HC1) means that the diluent gas may exceed
“the upper limitation for diluent gas” in Kim ’710 (Br. 11). This argument is
not persuasive for reasons explained by the Examiner, including that the
claimed ranges of HC1 and de facto ranges of hydrogen overlap those in the
5
Appeal 2016-004938
Application 14/032,261
prior art (Ans. 8). It is well established that a prima facie case of
obviousness typically exists where the prior art and claimed ranges
overlap. See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re
Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d
1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
No further substantive arguments were made regarding this § 103
rejection.
Appellant does not present any separate arguments for dependent
claims 21 and 22 (Br. 11). Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports
the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 5,21 and 22.
Thus, we also affirm the § 103 rejection of claims 3, 6, and 12.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.
ORDER
AFFIRMED
6