Ex Parte Dantz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2012

12039351 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
12/039,351 02/28/2008 Dirk Dantz WSAG0133PUS1 7325
22045 7590 09/17/2012
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
1000 TOWN CENTER
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075
EXAMINER
SONG, MATTHEW J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1714
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/17/2012 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 DIRK DANTZ, WILFRIED VON AMMON,
DIRK ZEMKE, and FRANZ SEGIETH
____________________

Appeal 2011-001779
Application 12/039,351
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING

Appeal 2011-001779
Application 12/039,351
2
Appellants request rehearing of our Decision of June 26, 2012. In that
Decision, we sustained the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Aydelott in view of Applicants’ Admitted
Prior Art (Admission), Ehlert, and Chiou.
Appellants’ claim 4, the only claim on appeal, is directed to a process
for producing a silicon single crystal of <113> orientation.
In their Request for Rehearing, Appellants contend we failed to
appreciate that, in the prior art, crystals with <113> orientations are formed
by cutting them out of other orientations (Request 1). Appellants cite to the
following portion of the Specification:
(113) orientation surfaces have hitherto been prepared
from single crystals of different orientations, for example cut or
etched out of <100> orientation single crystals. The <100>
single crystals can be pulled using the known Czochralski
method, in which a seed crystal is immersed in a silicon melt
and slowly pulled upward with rotation. The single crystal
crystallizes as a structure in ingot form which has two conical
ends, of which the end known as the “body phase” is connected
to a dash seed. The dash seed connects the seed crystal and the
body phase and is distinguished by a small diameter, which is
less than that of the seed crystal. It is necessary in order to
terminate dislocations which are caused in the growing single
crystal by stresses after the seed crystal has been applied to the
melt.
(Spec. at ¶ bridging pages 1 and 2.)
We did not overlook the above disclosure. In fact, we acknowledged
in the opinion that “Appellants’ Specification states that ‘[ a] process for
producing a <113> orientation silicon single crystal by using the Czochralski
method does not form part of the prior art.’ (Spec. 3.)” (Decision 5.) We,
however, weighed that evidence against the evidence cited by the Examiner
(Aydelott, Ehlert, and Chiou) indicating that forming a single crystal of a
Appeal 2011-001779
Application 12/039,351
3
desired structure is merely a matter of selecting a seed having the orientation
of the desired single crystal to be formed and routinely optimizing the
process parameters of the pulling process (id. at 4-5).
Appellants contend that “[i]f the present invention were obvious as
alleged by the Examiner, the prior art would not have gone to such lengths
[i.e, cutting a (113) surface from a <100> orientation single crystal,] to
obtain the <113> orientation.” (Request 2.) However, there is little
evidence of what “such lengths” were or that they were particularly long or
complex. Nor have Appellants pointed to any convincing evidence tending
to show that growing the <113> orientation crystal using the known
Czochralski method with a <113> seed involved “going to such lengths” that
it involved skill beyond the capabilities of the ordinary artisan. A
modification is obvious if “it is likely the product not of innovation but of
ordinary skill.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
On this record, a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. Appellants have not convinced us
that we misapprehended or overlooked any fact or law that would cause us
to change our Decision.
The subject Request has been granted to the extent that the Decision
has been reconsidered, but is denied with respect to making any changes
therein.

DENIED
bar