Ex Parte Wiseman

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 29, 2009

10707909 (B.P.A.I. May. 29, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DONALD H. WISEMAN
____________

Appeal 2009-003004
Application 10/707,909
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided1: May 29, 2009
____________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, TERRY J. OWENS, and
ROMULO H. DELMENDO Administrative Patent Judges.

DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-28. (Appeal Brief filed February 5, 2007, hereinafter “App. Br.”;

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2009-003004
Application 10/707,909

Final Office Action mailed March 17, 2005). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant states that the claimed invention relates to “a crystal grower
[i.e., crystal growing apparatus] having an integrated Litz coil induction
heater” (Specification, hereinafter “Spec.,” ¶ 0001).
Claims 1, 9, 17, and 21, the only independent claims on appeal, read
as follows:
1. A crystal growing apparatus comprising:
a receptacle constructed to receive a material selected to
grow a crystal;
an induction heater having a Litz coil and constructed to
heat the material; and
a housing positioned about the induction heater and
constructed to receive the receptacle therein.
9. An induction heater comprising:
a casing having a first end and a second end;
a coil of woven strands of wire having a first end and a
second end and passing through the casing;
a lead connected to an end of the coil of woven strands of
wire and having a passage therethrough, the passage
constructed to provide coolant to a space between the coil of
woven strands of wire and the casing; and
at least one support leg extending along a coiled portion
of the casing and constructed to retain the casing in a coiled
position.
17. A method of manufacturing a crystal grower
comprising:
providing a reservoir to receive a crystal growing
material therein; and
2
Appeal 2009-003004
Application 10/707,909

coiling a Litz coil to receive the reservoir within a coiled
portion of the Litz coil; and
attaching at least one leg to the coiled portion of the Litz
coil to maintain a coiled orientation of the coiled portion of the
Litz coil.
21. A method of growing a crystal comprising the steps
of:
placing a crystal growing material in a vessel; and
energizing a coil of wire that has Litz characteristics and
that is wound about the vessel and held in a coiled position by a
housing formed thereabout.
The Examiner relied upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Haldeman 5,461,215 Oct. 24, 1995
Von Ammon2 6,117,230 Sep. 12, 2000

The Examiner rejected the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as follows:
(i) claims 1, 2, 9-11, 16-18, and 20 as unpatentable in view of the
combined teachings of Haldeman and Von Ammon (Examiner’s Answer
mailed July 17, 2006, hereinafter “Ans.,” 3);
(ii) claims 3, 5-8, 12-15, and 19 as unpatentable in view of the
combined teachings of Haldeman and Von Ammon (id.); and
(iii) claims 4 and 21-28 as unpatentable in view of the combined
teachings of Haldeman and Von Ammon (id. at 4).

ISSUES

2 The Examiner refers to Von Ammon as “Ammon et al.” But see the
Certificate of Correction in Von Ammon.
3
Appeal 2009-003004
Application 10/707,909

The Examiner found that Haldeman teaches every limitation of
independent claim 1 except for the housing means (Ans. 3). To account for
this difference, the Examiner relied on Von Ammon, which the Examiner
found “teaches a czochralski apparatus where there is a housing [that]
surrounds heating coils” (id.). The Examiner then concluded that “[i]t would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Haldeman
reference by the teachings of the [Von] Ammon et al reference to include a
housing in order to prevent the heater from deforming and creating
impurities in the process” (id.). With regard to claim 9, the Examiner
concluded that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would change and know to
change the heater set up like the supports in order for the Litz coil heater [of
Haldeman] to work properly (id. at 7). With regard to claim 17, the
Examiner determined that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to attach a leg for stability” (id. at 8). With regard to
independent claim 21, the Examiner found that Haldeman and Ammon differ
from the claimed subject matter “in the method of growth” (id. at 4).
Nevertheless, the Examiner concluded that “it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimum, operable means of
growth which best use the Litz coils in the Haldeman reference in order to
decrease energy use in the crystal growing methods” (id.).
Appellant, on the other hand, argued that Haldeman discloses that the
induction heater is isolated from the melt by an enclosure and therefore
“encapsulation of the heater [in a housing as in claim 1] is not necessary or
desired” (App. Br. 9). Furthermore, with respect to claim 9, Appellant
asserted that “the induction heater of Haldeman does not (1) include at least
one support leg which extends along a coiled portion of the casing and (2)
4
Appeal 2009-003004
Application 10/707,909

include at least one support leg constructed to retain the casing in a coiled
position” (id. at 13). With respect to claim 17, Appellants asserted that the
prior art of record does not disclose “attaching at least one leg to the coiled
portion of a Litz coil to maintain a coiled orientation of the coiled portion of
the Litz coil” (id. at 16). Finally, with respect to claim 21, Appellants
asserted:
Haldeman fails to disclose positioning any housing about the
induction heater thereof [as in claim 21]. In fact, in disclosing
that the induction heater is deformable to allow heating of a
plurality of parts having . . . different shapes and sizes,
Haldeman teaches away from any extraneous retention of the
induction heater. Furthermore, it is the material and not any
“housing”, or tube 19 of Von Ammon et al. which maintains the
heater disclosed therein in a coiled position [Br. 17].
Thus, the issues arising from the contentions of the Examiner and
Appellant are:
Has Appellant shown reversible error in the Examiner’s conclusion
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to provide
Haldeman’s crystal growth apparatus with a housing as taught by Von
Ammon to arrive at the claimed subject matter of claims 1 and 21?
Has Appellant shown reversible error in the Examiner’s conclusion
that a person of ordinary skill would have provided Haldeman’s apparatus
with legs, as recited in claims 9 and 17, in order for the Litz coils to work
properly and to provide stability?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Haldeman discloses:
Radio frequency (RF) induction heating is ideally
suited for material-processing technology and has been
5
Appeal 2009-003004
Application 10/707,909

used for many years for melting, brazing, heat treating
and crystal growth. In semiconductor processing, the
main reason to prefer induction heating is cleanliness.
Only the susceptor and wafer are subjected to high
temperatures and the heating coil can be located outside
the physical enclosure [col. 1, ll. 11-17].
2. Haldeman discloses:
The present invention is directed to an RF
transmission cable, transformer primary or secondary
winding with specific application to an induction heating
coil for generating a time varying magnetic field to
induce electric current formation in an electrically
conducting workpiece. The coil comprises: a litz cable
comprising a bundle of mutually electrically insulated,
intermixed wire filaments, and a coolant tube,
surrounding the litz wire, for conveying a fluid for
removing heat generated by the litz cable [col. 1, ll. 33-
41].
3. Haldeman discloses that the induction heating coil is flexible to permit
its use for different heating applications by reorienting the coil turns
without re-constructing the coil for each new workpiece and can be
deformed elastically to provide a nominal turn radius ranging from
long stretched out and short multi-turn (col. 3, ll. 61-64; col. 4, l. 66 to
5, l. 2).
4. Von Ammon’s Fig. 5 is reproduced below:
6
Appeal 2009-003004
Application 10/707,909

Fig. 5 depicts a crucible 1 containing a silicon melt 34, wherein the
crucible 1 is embedded in a support crucible 2 and a bottom heater 4 is
arranged below the crucible (col. 3, ll. 25-30).
5. Von Ammon discloses: “Together with the tube 19 and a support
crucible 2, the base plate [9] forms a cavity 20 which contains the
bottom heater 4” (col. 4, ll. 42-44).
6. Von Ammon teaches that “[t]he bottom heater 4 comprises essentially
a coil which is preferably made of graphite, CFC (carbon fiber
composite) or metals such as molybdenum or tantalum” (col. 3, ll. 34-
36).
7. Von Ammon discloses that the turns of the coil lead in widening paths
from an inner electrical connection to an outer electrical connection,
7
Appeal 2009-003004
Application 10/707,909

wherein the turns “may be arranged in a single layer or in a plurality
of layers, one above the other” (col. 3, ll. 36-43).
8. Von Ammon teaches: “The bottom heater is substantially enclosed in
the cavity, so that impurities originating from it cannot reach the melt
via the gas phase (col. 4, ll. 44-46).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007).
While KSR explains that an obviousness “analysis need not seek out
precise [prior art] teachings,” it nonetheless did not dispense with the need,
in relevant cases, for evaluating the evidence to determine whether a person
having ordinary skill in the art would have had “an apparent reason to
combine the known elements in the fashion claimed.” Id. at 418.

ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in concluding that a
person having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to combine the
teachings of Haldeman and Von Ammon by providing Haldeman’s crystal
growth apparatus with Von Ammon’s housing. Contrary to the Examiner’s
position, the evidence of record does not support the conclusion that a
person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined the two
8
Appeal 2009-003004
Application 10/707,909

references by providing Von Ammon’s housing in Haldeman to prevent
Haldeman’s heater from deforming and creating impurities in the process.
Specifically, the Examiner found that Haldeman discloses a crystal
growth apparatus including a receptacle (vessel), but not a housing (Fact 1;
Ans. 3). To account for this difference the Examiner relied on Von Ammon,
which teaches a crystal growth apparatus including, inter alia, a crucible
containing melt for forming crystals and an induction heater coil, preferably
made of graphite, CFC (carbon fiber composite), or metals such as
molybdenum or tantalum, wherein the coils of the heater lead in widening
paths from an inner electrical connection to an outer electrical connection
(Facts 4, 6, and 7). To prevent impurities from reaching the melt, Von
Ammon teaches that the heater is positioned under the crucible and is
enclosed by a housing (Facts 4, 5, and 8).
Unlike Von Ammon, however, Haldeman discloses an enclosed
crystal growth apparatus in which the induction heater is outside the physical
enclosure (Fact 1). As such, a person having ordinary skill in the art would
have understood that Haldeman’s crystal growth apparatus is not susceptible
to the same problem as in Von Ammon’s crystal growth apparatus (i.e.,
impurities from the heater reaching the melt). Thus, the Examiner has not
adequately explained why a person having ordinary skill in the art would
have been led to combine Haldeman’s teaching of an enclosed vessel having
an outside heater for crystal growth with Von Ammon, which is directed to a
crystal growth apparatus having a housing to shield an open vessel
containing melt from impurities originating from the heater.
The Examiner’s alternate reason to combine the teachings of
Haldeman and Von Ammon (i.e., to prevent Haldeman’s heater from
9
Appeal 2009-003004
Application 10/707,909

deforming) is also insufficient to show that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been led to combine the prior art teachings. Haldeman discloses
a coil comprising a “litz cable” within a coolant tube, wherein the coil is
flexible and elastically deformable such that the coil can be reoriented for
use in different heating applications (Fact 2 and 3). Indeed, the Examiner
states:
The Haldeman reference is merely teaching that a Litz coil can
be made of various shapes and sizes. The reference is showing
that this heater can be made to wrap around many various
materials and of differing shapes. . . . The reference at no point
teaches or suggests that the Litz coils change shape during
heating and[/]or not stable. This is simply not the case. The
Haldeman reference teaches that the coil can be made of
different materials. Thus, the Litz coil will remain the same
shape and be usable in a seed pulling apparatus [Ans. 5].
Furthermore, the Examiner asserts:
The Haldeman reference does not teach that the heater moves,
uncoils during use. This simply does not happen [id. at 8].
Thus, the Examiner does not provide sufficient evidence or reasoning that
Haldeman’s crystal growth apparatus and induction heater is susceptible to
the deformation problem that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to
add a housing. For these reasons, we find that the Examiner erred in
concluding that independent claims 1 and 21 (and their respective dependent
claims 2-8 and 22-28) would have been obvious in view of the prior art.
With regard to independent claims 9 and 17, the Examiner did not
identify any element in Haldeman or Von Ammon that corresponds to the
claimed leg (Ans. 3). With regard to claim 9, the Examiner stated:
[T]he combination of references . . . uses the heater of
Haldeman. . . . Clearly, a different heater would not have the
exact same set up as set forth in [Von] Ammon et al. One of
10
Appeal 2009-003004
Application 10/707,909

ordinary skill in the art would change and know to change the
heater set up like the supports in order for the Litz coil heater to
work properly [Ans. 7].
With regard to claim 17, the Examiner stated:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
attach a leg for stability. Also, one of ordinary skill in the art is
not going to want to have a heater, which moves during the
process. This could and would lead to the growth of bad
crystals [Ans. 8].
Thus, with respect to these two claims, the Examiner’s position is that a
person of ordinary skill would have provided Haldeman’s apparatus with
legs in order for the Litz coils to work properly and to provide stability.
We do not agree with the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion because
the Examiner did not identify sufficient evidence or reasoning (not based on
hindsight) that supports the Examiner’s assertions. As discussed above, the
Examiner acknowledges that Haldeman’s induction heater coil will remain
the same shape during heating and that Haldeman does not teach or suggest
that the Litz coils are not stable (Ans. 5 and 7-8). This contradicts the
Examiner's conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
led to provide a leg to support Haldeman’s shape-maintaining, stable heater
coil. For this reason, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness for independent claims 9 and 17 and their respective dependent
claims 10-16 and 18-20.

CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown reversible error in the Examiner’s conclusion
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to provide
11
Appeal 2009-003004
Application 10/707,909

Haldeman’s crystal growth apparatus with a housing as taught by Von
Ammon to arrive at the claimed subject matter of claims 1 and 21.
Appellant has shown reversible error in the Examiner’s conclusion
that a person of ordinary skill would have provided Haldeman’s apparatus
with legs, as recited in claims 9 and 17, in order for the Litz coils to work
properly and to provide stability.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject the appealed claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
(i) claims 1, 2, 9-11, 16-18, and 20 as unpatentable in view of the
combined teachings of Haldeman and Von Ammon;
(ii) claims 3, 5-8, 12-15, and 19 as unpatentable in view of the
combined teachings of Haldeman and Von Ammon; and
(iii) claims 4 and 21-28 as unpatentable in view of the combined
teachings of Haldeman and Von Ammon.

REVERSED

sss

ZIOLKOWSKI PATENT SOLUTIONS GROUP, SC (ZPS)
136 S WISCONSIN ST
PORT WASHINGTON WI 53074
12