Ex Parte Coe et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2017

13994922 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 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.
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