Ex Parte Coe et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 31, 201713994922 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/994,922 12/19/2013 Steven Edward Coe 58116-945571 5454 23370 7590 02/02/2017 KTT PATRTrK TOWNSFND fr STOrKTON T T P EXAMINER Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 PEACHTREE STREET BRATLAND JR, KENNETH A SUITE 2800 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER A1EAJN 1 A, LrA 5U5Uy 1714 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2017 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): ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com jlhice@kilpatrick.foundationip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEVEN EDWARD COE, JONATHAN JAMES WILMAN, DANIEL JAMES TWITCHEN, GEOFFREY ALAN SCARSBROOK, JOHN ROBERT BRANDON, CHRISTOPHER JOHN HOWARD WORT, and MATTHEW LEE MARKHAM Appeal 2017-001419 Application 13/994,922 Technology Center 1700 Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2017-001419 Application 13/994,922 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims 1—14. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). A petition to make special was granted in this application on January 23, 2014. We REVERSE. Appellants’ invention is directed to a method of controlling the concentration and uniformity of dopants in synthetic diamond material manufactured using a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) technique (Spec. 1). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method of manufacturing synthetic CVD diamond material, the method comprising: providing a microwave plasma reactor comprising: a plasma chamber; one or more substrates disposed in the plasma chamber providing a growth surface area over which the synthetic CVD diamond material is to be deposited in use; a microwave coupling configuration for feeding microwaves from a microwave generator into the plasma chamber; and a gas flow system for feeding process gases into the plasma chamber and removing them therefrom, injecting process gases into the plasma chamber; feeding microwaves from the microwave generator into the plasma chamber through the microwave coupling configuration to form a plasma above the growth surface area or below the growth surface area if the microwave plasma reactor is in an inverted arrangement with process gases flowing in an upwards direction; and growing synthetic CVD diamond material over the growth surface area, wherein the gas flow system includes a gas inlet comprising one or more gas inlet nozzles disposed opposite the growth surface area and configured to inject process gases towards the growth surface area; wherein the microwave coupling configuration comprises a microwave window for feeding microwaves from the microwave generator into the plasma chamber, the microwave window being disposed at an opposite end of the plasma chamber to the growth surface area; 2 Appeal 2017-001419 Application 13/994,922 wherein the process gases are injected into the plasma chamber through the one or more gas inlet nozzles with a Reynolds number in a range of 1 to 100; wherein the plasma chamber is configured to support a TM0n standing microwave mode; wherein the one or more gas inlet nozzles are integrally formed in a metallic wall of the plasma chamber disposed opposite the growth surface area; and wherein the microwave window is in the form of an annular dielectric window disposed around the metallic wall of the plasma chamber in which the one or more gas inlet nozzles are disposed; and wherein a power density delivered to the growth surface area is equal to or greater than 1 W/mm2 of the growth surface area. Appellants appeal the following rejections: 1. Claims 1, 6—8, and 10—14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Zhang et al. (US 5,571,577, issued Nov. 5, 1996) (“Zhang”) in view of Asmussen et al. (US 4,943,345, issued July 24, 1990) (“Asmussen”). 2. Claims 2—5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Zhang in view of Asmussen and Noguchi (EP 1 500 718 Al, published Jan. 26, 2005). 3. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zhang in view of Asmussen, Noguchi, and Plano et al. (EP 0 582 397 A2, published Feb. 9, 1994) (“Plano”). FINDINGS OF FACT & ANAFYSIS The Examiner finds that Zhang teaches the subject matter of claim 1 including the step of providing a microwave plasma reactor comprising a microwave coupling configuration that comprises a microwave window disposed at an opposite end of the plasma chamber to the growth surface 3 Appeal 2017-001419 Application 13/994,922 area for feeding the microwaves from the microwave generator to the plasma chamber and the microwave window is in the form of an annular dielectric window disposed around the metallic wall of the plasma chamber in which the one or more gas inlet nozzles are disposed (Final Act. 2—5). The Examiner finds that Zhang does not teach a plasma chamber is configured to support TMon standing microwave mode (Final Act. 5). The Examiner finds that Asmussen teaches that the microwave CVD system may be configured to operate in the TM0n standing wave mode. Id. The Examiner concludes that based upon the teachings of Asmussen it would have been obvious to configure Zhang’s microwave plasma device to support TM0n standing microwave mode since doing so involves nothing more than the use of a known method for its intended use (Final Act. 6). Regarding the claim 1 requirement that the microwave window is an annular dielectric window disposed around the metallic wall of the plasma chamber, the Examiner finds that Zhang’s quartz bell jar 18 forms an annular window disposed around the jet controller 35 (Final Act. 5). The Examiner explains that the claim 1 recitation of an annular microwave window is a structural limitation that amounts to the mere use of a particular structure without the incorporation of a manipulative step (Ans. 6). The Examiner further finds that Zhang’s quartz bell jar 18 functions as a microwave window that feeds microwaves into the plasma chamber and includes vertical sidewalls that form a circular ring shape that is disposed around the jet controller 35. Id. The Examiner finds that the walls of Zhang’s quartz bell jar 18 may constitute an annular dielectric window. Id. Claim 1 requires that the “microwave window being disposed at an opposite end of the plasma chamber to the growth surface area . . . wherein 4 Appeal 2017-001419 Application 13/994,922 the microwave window is in the form of an annular dielectric window disposed around the metallic wall of the plasma chamber.” The Specification shows that the annular microwave window 119 is a ring shaped window in the top wall of the plasma chamber 102 opposite the growth surface area 105 (Fig. 1; Spec. 11). Accordingly, “opposite the end of the plasma chamber to the growth surface area” means that the window is facing and directly opposed to the growth surface area 105. “Annular” within the meaning of the Specification includes a ring shaped microwave window. With this proper claim construction is mind, we fail to see how Zhang’s quartz bell jar 18 constitutes an annular microwave window positioned so that it is opposite the end of the plasma growth chamber to the growth surface area. Appellants contend that Zhang’s quartz bell jar 18 is not annular (App. Br. 11). Appellants argue that Zhang’s quartz bell jar 18 is domed or bell shaped. Id. The Examiner appears to concede that the top of the quartz bell jar 18 is not annular, but the Examiner finds that the sidewalls of the jar may constitute an annular window (Ans. 6). The Examiner does not explain how the “annular” sidewalls of the quartz bell jar are located opposite the substrate within the meaning of claim 1. The Examiner’s analysis is based upon Zhang’s quartz bell jar 18 facing and, thus, being opposite to the substrate 31 (Ans. 6). We understand the Examiner’s position to rely on the top of the quartz bell jar 18 to be the portion facing the substrate, but this portion is not annular. The sides of the quartz bell jar 18 that the Examiner finds to be annular are not directly opposite the substrate as would be required to meet the claim. 5 Appeal 2017-001419 Application 13/994,922 The Examiner’s finding that the structural limitation of the annular window is merely a recitation of the use of a particular structure that does not affect the method is in error. Claim 1 requires a step of providing a microwave plasma reactor having an annular microwave window positioned at an opposite end of the plasma chamber to the growth surface area. Though these features are structural, the method includes an explicit step of providing the structure that is then used to perform additional steps. On this record, we reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejections (1) to (3). DECISION The Examiner’s decision is reversed. ORDER REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation