Kyojiro Kaneko

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 28, 2020

13510386 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2020)

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.
13/510,386 05/17/2012 Kyojiro Kaneko 1929-009B-US 6234
31855 7590 04/28/2020
PHILIP O. POST
INDEL, INC.
PO BOX 157
RANCOCAS, NJ 08073
EXAMINER
BRATLAND JR, KENNETH A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1714
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2020 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 KYOJIRO KANEKO

Appeal 2019-006538
Application 13/510,386
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4–12, and 14–17. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Consarc
Corporation. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-006538
Application 13/510,386

2
Appellant’s invention is directed to a silicon electromagnetic casting
apparatus used to manufacture silicon ingots for silicon substrates used
mainly in solar cells (Spec. ¶ 1; Claim 1).
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal:

1. A silicon electromagnetic casting apparatus comprising a furnace
vessel, a conductive crucible installed within the furnace vessel and an
induction coil element installed around the outer circumference of the
conductive crucible, wherein a constant pressure is maintained within the
furnace vessel using a prescribed gas and a silicon in the conductive crucible
is moved downwards along the center line of the furnace vessel, and melted
by induction heating by applying a terminal voltage to the induction coil
element to form a molten silicon, and thereafter the molten silicon is
solidified at a solidification interface;
characterized in that the induction coil element comprises a plurality of
induction coils of different induction frequencies arranged one above
another from a lowest-disposed induction coil to a highest-disposed
induction coil in which the silicon in the crucible is melted by induction
heating, wherein among the plurality of induction coils of different induction
frequencies, the highest-disposed induction coil is positioned above
the solidification interface to stir the molten silicon and the lowest-disposed
induction coil is positioned at the solidification interface, the lowest-
disposed induction coil having a high induction frequency of at least 25 kHz,
with which high induction frequency the stirring effect on the molten silicon
is low at the solidification interface and a static state of the molten silicon is
maintained at the solidification interface.

Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 5, 6, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kaneko (US 2007/0039544 A1; pub. Feb. 22,
2007) in view of Kaneko II (US 4,915,723; iss. Apr. 10, 1990).
2. Claims 4, 8, 10, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kaneko in view of Kaneko II, Mosch (US
Appeal 2019-006538
Application 13/510,386

3
5,066,223; iss. Nov. 19, 1991), or Kim (KR 1999-0052121; pub.
July 05, 1999).
3. Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kaneko in view of Kaneko II, and Aratani (US
5,510,095; iss. Apr. 23, 1996).
4. Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kaneko in view of Kaneko II, Mosch, Kim and
Aratani.
5. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kaneko in view of Kaneko II, Sasatani (US
2008/0210156 A1; pub. Sept. 04, 2008).

FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS

Rejection 1
Appellant argues independent claim 1 and 12 separately (Appeal Br.
11 and 16). Appellant’s argument regarding dependent claims 5 and 6 rely
on arguments made regarding claim 1 (Appeal Br. 15). Therefore, claims 5
and 6 will stand or fall with claim 1.

Claim 1
The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding the § 103
rejection of claim 1 over Kaneko in view of Kaneko II are located on pages
2 to 6 of the Non-Final Action.
Appeal 2019-006538
Application 13/510,386

4
Appellant argues that Kaneko II uses heating means 24 to apply heat
to a solidified silicon ingot to prevent a thermal strain due to sudden cooling
(Appeal Br. 13). Appellant argues that Kaneko II has three inductively
heated zones: (1) the zone with coil 7 where the silicon is melted, (2) the
zone after the melt where solidification begins and (3) the zone where
solidified silicon is heated by heating means 24 (Appeal Br. 12). Appellant
contends that there is no basis, absent impermissible hindsight, for using
Kaneko II”s teachings within a zone of molten silicon in light of Kaneko II’s
teaching to apply the heater 24 having the second coil 31 to a solidified
silicon ingot (Appeal Br. 12, 13). Appellant contends that Kaneko II’s
second induction coil 31 as shown in Figure 3B and Figure 4 is positioned
around the solidified silicon ingot and not near the molten induction heating
zone or the solidification interface heating zone (Appeal Br. 14). Appellant
argues that because Kaneko II places the coil 31 around a solidified silicon
ingot, there is no merit in the Examiner’s position that there is no change in
the respective function of the coils (Appeal Br. 14). Appellant contends that
there is no teaching or suggestion in Kaneko II to operate coils 7 and 31 in
the Figure 3B embodiment at different frequencies (Appeal Br. 14).
Claim 1 is an apparatus claim. As an apparatus claim, the claims
cover what the device is, not what the device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. V.
Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim
reciting the manner in which an apparatus is to be used does not differentiate
a claim from the prior art if all structural limitations are taught by the prior
art. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
The Examiner reasonably finds that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have combined Kaneko II’s dual coil structure in an induction
Appeal 2019-006538
Application 13/510,386

5
casting furnace for making silicon ingots with Kaneko’s induction furnace to
provide greater control over axial temperature gradients within the molten
zone and/or solidified ingot during crystal growth (Non-Final Act. 6).
Appellant’s argument regarding the positioning of Kaneko II’s lower coil 31
over the solidified portion of the silicon ingot does not patentably distinguish
the claimed apparatus structure over the structure suggested by the
combination of Kaneko and Kaneko II. Appellant does not direct us to any
teachings that would structurally distinguish Kaneko II’s lower coil 31 from
the claimed lowest disposed induction coil. In other words, the Examiner
reasonably finds Kaneko’s structure as modified by Kaneko II’s teachings
would have been capable of applying a high induction frequency to the
lower induction coil (i.e., 31) that suppresses stirring of the silicon melt. In
re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The court found that
based on the identity of the oil can structure, it was functionally capable of
performing the claimed function (i.e., dispensing popcorn kernels) absent
evidence that the can was not capable of such a function).
Appellant’s argument that Kaneko II positions of the lower coil
around the solidified portion of the silicon ingot is directed to the process
used in the apparatus. Stated differently, the apparatus of Kaneko as
modified by Kaneko II would be capable positioning the solid ingot so that
the solid/melt portion of the ingot in the apparatus is aligned with the second
coil. The location of the melt/solid line in the silicon ingot is a function of
how the coils are used (i.e., frequency applied, duration, etc.). The
Examiner finds that Kaneko II teaches that inductor coils 7 and 31 may be
controlled independently of one another (Ans. 5). We agree with the
Appeal 2019-006538
Application 13/510,386

6
Examiner that independent control would have suggested that coils 7 and 31
are capable of having different frequencies applied to them (Ans. 5).
Based on the Examiner’s finding of capability, the burden shifted to
Appellant to show that Kaneko’s structure as modified by Kaneko II’s dual
coil system would not have been capable of performing the recited function
(i.e., operating at different frequencies so that they are positioned at the
melt/solid silicon interface). Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478. Appellant’s
arguments have not satisfied that burden. We affirm the rejection of claims
1, 5, and 6.

Claim 12
The Examiner’s finding and conclusions regarding claim 12 are
located on pages 6 to 10 of the Non-Final Action. As with claim 1, the
Examiner finds that Kaneko teaches the features of process claim 12 but
fails to teach the induction coil is comprised of a plurality of induction coils
and applying a terminal voltage in the claimed manner (Non-Final Act. 7).
The Examiner finds that Kaneko II teaches arranging two coils (i.e., coils 7
and 31) above one another and operating the coil 7 at 20 kHz or 30 kHz and
Kaneko teaches performing crystal growth at an induction frequency of 30
kHz (Non-Final Act. 8). The Examiner finds that Kaneko and Kaneko II
teach that induction frequency is a result effective variable that would have
been readily optimized (Non-Final Act. 9–10). The Examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to combine Kaneko II’s dual induction coil
heating system in a silicon ingot furnace with Kaneko’s silicon ingot
induction furnace and to provide the coils with different induction
frequencies to better control temperature gradients in the melt (Non-Final
Appeal 2019-006538
Application 13/510,386

7
Act. 9–10). The Examiner finds that the optimal relative induction coil
frequency for the upper and lower coil in the method of Kaneko as modified
by Kaneko II would have been readily optimized for the heating process to
produce desired temperature gradients (Non-Final Act. 10). The Examiner
cites KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 416 (2007) and
finds that all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by
known methods with no change in their respective functions, yielding no
more than predictable results (Non-Final Act. 10).
Appellant argues that Kaneko does not teach maintaining a static state
of the molten silicon during production of the silicon ingot from the molten
silicon as disclosed and claimed in the process claims (Appeal Br. 16).
Appellant contends that contrary to the Examiner’s conclusory finding that
Kaneko’s process is at steady state, Kaneko discloses that coil 2 stirs and
moves the molten material and does not maintain a static state at the
melt/solid interface (Appeal Br. 16). Appellant argues that Kaneko II
applies heat from the lower heater 24 to a solidified silicon ingot (Appeal Br.
16). Appellant contends that Kaneko II is silent about the induction
frequency of the second induction coil 31 and the relative power frequencies
of coil 7 and coil 31 since the heating process of coil 7 and coil 31 are not
related in Kaneko II (Appeal Br. 17). Appellant argues that in Kaneko II
coil 7 is used for heating and stirring molten silicon and coil 31 is used for
controlled axial gradient heating of the solidified silicon ingot unlike claim
12 that requires the lower induction coil has a high frequency applied to
suppress stirring of the molten silicon (Appeal Br. 17). Appellant argues
that Kaneko II does not teach that the operating frequencies of the induction
Appeal 2019-006538
Application 13/510,386

8
coils are result effective variables for suppressing the stirring of molten
silicon at the solidification interface and maintaining a static state of the
molten silicon at the solidification interface (Appeal Br. 17). Appellant
argues that routine optimization of the induction coil frequencies in Kaneko
II would optimize the separate control of the melting silicon with the
separate control of the axial temperature gradient of the cast ingot formed
after silicon melting and solidification of the cast ingot (Appeal Br. 18).
Appellant argues that the Examiner engaged in impermissible hindsight in
concluding that the subject matter of claim 12 would have been obvious over
Kaneko and Kaneko II (Appeal Br. 18). We agree.
The Examiner has not shown why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have optimized the induction frequency of Kaneko II’s lower coil 31
to be at least 25 kHz as required by the process step in claim 12. As argued
by Appellant, Kaneko II teaches that the lower coil 31 of heater 24 is used to
anneal solidified silicon (Kaneko II, col. 9, ll. 50–53, col. 10, ll. 14–18).
Kaneko II further discloses that the heating means 24 is disposed
downstream of the described boundary surface B in Figure 4 (col. 4, ll. 37–
42, 47–49). See also, Kaneko II Figure 3B. Kaneko II discloses that Figure
4 shows that the boundary surface B between molten and solid silicon is
within the first induction coil 7 (col. 4, ll. 9–11). Kaneko II further discloses
that “solidified silicon 12 is pulled down from inside of the bottomless
crucible 6 while its temperature gradually falls.” (col. 4, ll. 11–13).
In light Kaneko II’s teachings, we agree with Appellant that the
combined teachings of Kaneko and Kaneko II would have suggested in the
context of the process claims to put the lower inductive coil 31 around the
solidified portion of the silicon ingot to control thermal gradients. Kaneko
Appeal 2019-006538
Application 13/510,386

9
modified to use Kaneko II’s dual inductive coil system would have
suggested operating the lower coil to achieve the benefits taught by Kaneko
II (i.e., “a desired axial temperature gradient is given to the silicon
immediately after solidified to prevent a thermal strain due to sudden
cooling form being produced.”) (Kaneko II, col. 9, ll. 50–53). Stated
differently, the teachings of the references as a whole would have suggested
controlling the inductive frequency of the coils so that the solidified portion
of the silicon ingot is temperature controlled according to Kaneko II’s
teachings. The Examiner’s result-effective variable analysis is based on
optimizing the inductive frequencies to “produce the temperature gradients
necessary to produce a cast silicon ingot having the desired properties.”
(Ans. 6–7). The Examiner has not established based on the teachings in
Kaneko and Kaneko II that the optimization would have resulted in using a
frequency of greater than 25 kHz in the lower coil so as to suppress mixing
in the silicon melt as recited in the process claim 12. We find that the
Examiner engaged in impermissible hindsight in rejecting claim 12, which is
directed to a process rather than to an apparatus. According to Kaneko II’s
teaching the silicon is already solidified when surrounded by the second coil.
On this record, we reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claim
12 and claims 14 to 17 that depend on claim 12 that are rejected under
rejections (2), (3), and (5).

Rejection (2): Claim 4
Appellant’s arguments focus on the subject matter of claim 4 only
(Appeal Br. 18–22). Arguments regarding claims 8 and 10 rely on arguments
Appeal 2019-006538
Application 13/510,386

10
made regarding claim 1 (Appeal Br. 22). The rejection of claims 8 and 10
will stand or fall with claim 1.
Appellant argues that Mosch and Kaneko II are significantly different
such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not looked to Mosch’s radiant
heat conduction shield for the magnetic shield of claim 4 (Appeal Br. 21).
Appellant contends that the magnetic shields function to shield magnetic
action between the plurality of induction coils, which is not technically
related to the shielding of radiated heat from resistive heating elements as in
Mosch (Appeal Br. 21).
The Examiner responds that Mosch and Kaneko II are each related to
systems and methods for using a crucible to form a cast structure from the
melt and hence are analogous art (Ans. 7). We agree and note that Appellant
does not respond to this finding in a Reply Brief. The Examiner further
finds and Appellant does not contest that Mosch’s radiant shields are
typically made of metal which is a good reflector of incident radiation and
thus would also function as a magnetic shield (Ans. 7). Appellant has not
shown reversible error with the Examiner’s analysis based on Mosch.
Regarding Kim, Appellant argues that Kim does not teach a magnetic
shield between a plurality of induction coils (Appeal Br. 21). Appellant
contends that Kim’s magnetic shield only surrounds a single coil (Appeal
Br. 21).
The Examiner finds that “providing a magnetic shield which
completely surrounds just one of the upper (7) or lower (31) induction coils
in the teachings of Kaneko II would necessarily mean that a magnetic shield
is installed between the two coils as required by claim 4.” (Ans. 8). We
agree. As shown in Kim’s figure 1 the shield 3 forms a barrier below and
Appeal 2019-006538
Application 13/510,386

11
above the coil 2. Applying that teaching Kaneko II would have resulted in a
barrier between coils 7 and 31 as the Examiner finds. Appellant does not
contest this finding in a Reply Brief.
On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 4,
8, and 10.

Rejection (3): Claim 7
Appellant argues that Aratani teaches a plasma purification of silicon,
not heating of the molten silicon material with a plasma torch (Appeal Br.
23).
The Examiner finds that Aratani’s use of plasma torch to remove
impurities would necessarily cause the raw material to be heated even it is
performed primarily for a different purpose (Ans. 8). We agree. Appellant
has not shown that Aratani’s use of the plasma torch to remove impurities
from the silicon would not have resulted in heating the silicon melt too.
On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 7
over Kaneko, Kaneko II and Aratani.

Rejection (4): Claims 9 and 11
Appellant relies on arguments made regarding claims 1, 4, and 7
(Appeal Br. 24–25). We find those arguments unpersuasive for the reasons
noted supra in this decision.
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 9 and 11.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Appeal 2019-006538
Application 13/510,386

12
Claims
Rejected
Basis Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1, 5, 6, 12 § 103 Kaneko,
Kaneko II
1, 5, 6 12
4, 8, 10, 14 § 103 Kaneko,
Kaneko II,
Mosch, Kim
4, 8, 10 14
7, 17 § 103 Kaneko,
Kaneko II,
Aratani
7 17
9, 11 § 103 Kaneko,
Kaneko II,
Mosch,
Aratani
9, 11
15, 16 § 103 Kaneko,
Kaneko II,
Sasatani
15, 16
Overall
Outcome
1, 4–11 12, 14–17

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART