Ex Parte Fujita et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 13, 2015

11632999 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ICHIRO FUJITA and HIROKAZU FUJIWARA ____________ Appeal 2013-003597 Application 11/632,999 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before CHARLES F. WARREN, N.WHITNEY WILSON, and WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges. WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Primary Examiner’s April 17, 2012 decision finally rejecting claims 1, 8–15, 17–19, and 21–27. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, Toyo Tanso Co., Ltd. is the Real-Party-in- Interest (Br. 1). Appeal 2013-003597 Application 11/632,999 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants’ invention is directed to a susceptor capable of obtaining high quality silicon carbide (SiC) semiconductor crystals (Abstract). Independent claim 1 recites a susceptor comprising a graphite-made body covered with silicon carbide (Spec. ¶ 1), a wafer-placement part comprising tantalum carbide or a graphite material covered with a film of tantalum carbide, wherein a hole is formed on the graphite-made body which accommodates a wafer (Spec. ¶ 6). The wafer-placement part is fitted into the hole and contacts the graphite-made body (id.). A sunk portion is formed by the wafer-placement part and the graphite-made body covered with silicon carbide (Spec. ¶¶ 15, 17), and the wafer-placement part is exposed to an atmosphere at a bottom surface of the sunk portion (Figs. 1 and 3), and the wafer-placement part does not comprise a through hole extending in the depth direction of the sunk portion (id.). The claimed susceptor may be illustrated by Appellants’ FIG. 1, an annotated version of which is which is reproduced below: The upper part of FIG. 1 is a perspective view of the susceptor according to the claimed invention, and the lower part of FIG. 1 is a cross- sectional view thereof. Appeal 2013-003597 Application 11/632,999 3 Claim 1 is representative, and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Brief (key claim limitation showed in italics): 1. A susceptor, comprising: a graphite-made body covered with silicon carbide; and a wafer-placement part comprising tantalum carbide or a graphite material covered with a film of tantalum carbide, wherein a hole is formed on the graphite-made body which accommodates a wafer, the wafer-placement part is fitted into the hole and contacts the graphite-made body, a sunk portion is formed by the wafer-placement part and the graphite-made body covered with silicon carbide, and the wafer-placement part is exposed to an atmosphere at a bottom surface of the sunk portion, and the wafer-placement part does not comprise a through hole extending in the depth direction of the sunk portion. REJECTIONS (1) Claims 1, 8–13, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mahawili 2 in view of Paisley. 3 (2) Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mahawili in view of Paisley, and further in view of Takagi 4 and Fujita. 5 (3) Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mahawili in view of Paisley, and further in view of Takagi and Yang ʼ887. 6 2 Mahawili, U.S. Patent No. 6,530,994 B1, issued March 11, 2003. 3 Paisley et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2003/0188687 A1, published October 9, 2003. 4 Takagi et al., JP 2004-084057, published March 18, 2004. 5 Fujita, U.S. Pat. Pub. 2003/0232001 A1, published December 18, 2003. Appeal 2013-003597 Application 11/632,999 4 (4) Claims 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mahawili in view of Paisley and Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art. (5) Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mahawili in view of Paisley, and further in view of Yang ʼ362. 7 (6) Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mahawili in view of Paisley, and further in view of Balog. 8 (7) Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Mahawili in view of Paisley and further in view of Takagi. Appellants do not make independent arguments with respect to Rejections (2)–(7) (Br. 14–17), and indicate that the claims recited therein are patentable for the same reason as claim 1. Similarly, Appellants do not make independent arguments with respect to dependent claims 8–13 (see, Br. 5–10). Accordingly, all of the dependent claims will stand or fall with claim 1. DISCUSSION The Examiner finds, and Appellants do not dispute, that Mahawili discloses each of the elements of claim 1, except that Mahawili does not disclose that the wafer placement part comprises tantalum carbide or a graphite material covered with a film of tantalum carbide (Ans. 3–6; Br. 6). The Examiner also finds that Mahawili discloses that its platform 10 comprises a 6 Yang, U.S. Patent No. 5,256,887, issued October 26, 1993. 7 Yang et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2002/0045362 A1, published April 18, 2002. 8 Balog et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,123,571, issued October 31, 1978. Appeal 2013-003597 Application 11/632,999 5 suitable material such as pure silicon carbide or silicon carbide coated graphite, and when processing a silicon wafer preferably comprises silicon carbide coated graphite (Ans. 3–4, Mahawili, col. 5, ll. 20-26). The Examiner further finds that Paisley discloses a susceptor assembly having a graphite-made body covered with silicon carbide having a hole in which a wafer placement part (platter 130, comprising satellite platters 180) is placed (Ans. 6, citing Paisley, Fig. 1, ¶ 46). The Examiner finds that Paisley discloses that the platters 130 and/or satellite platters 180 may be formed of solid silicon carbide or graphite coated with silicon carbide, or graphite coated with tantalum carbide (Ans. 6, Paisley ¶¶ 46–47). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to modify Mahawili’s apparatus by making its wafer placement part of tantalum carbide, or a graphite material covered with a film of tantalum carbide because Mahawili teaches the use of silicon carbide coated graphite while Paisley teaches the interchangeability of silicon carbide coated graphite and tantalum carbide coated graphite (Ans. 6). The Examiner finds that the motivation to so modify Mahawili is to use an alternate and equivalent material as taught by Paisley (Ans. 6–7). We have carefully considered each of the arguments set forth in the Appeal Brief, and determine that Appellants have not shown error in the rejection of claim 1, essentially for the reasons set forth in the Answer. We add the following for emphasis. Appellants argues that Mahawili “fails to recite the materials of the main body as presently claimed, including specifically the wafer placement part,” and that Paisley “fails to disclose the arrangement in which the wafer-placement part (satellite platter 180) made of TaC or a graphite material covered with TaC Appeal 2013-003597 Application 11/632,999 6 is combined with the main body made of an SiC-covered graphite material” (Br. 6). The Examiner has acknowledged these differences, however, and explained why it would have been obvious to make the necessary modifications to Mahawili in view of Paisley’s teachings (Ans. 6–7). Appellants also point to specific advantages of the claimed arrangement – namely that the use of different materials for the body and the wafer-placement part means that they will not adhere to each other, leading to improved results in manufacturing (Br. 8–9). However, this argument is not persuasive of error in the rejection because, as found by the Examiner, Paisley discloses the use of different materials in Paisley’s arrangement, i.e. materials which would not adhere to each other (Ans. 19, citing Paisley ¶¶ 46–47). While Appellants make separate arguments with respect to independent claims 26 and 27 (Br. 11–13), these arguments are not substantively different than the arguments made in support of reversing the rejection of claim 1, and therefore are not persuasive for the same reasons. We determine that Appellants have not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Examiner has erred in rejecting the claims. Accordingly, we affirm Rejection (1). CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 8–13, 26, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mahawili in view of Paisley. We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 14 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mahawili in view of Paisley, and further in view of Takagi and Fujita. Appeal 2013-003597 Application 11/632,999 7 We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 15 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mahawili in view of Paisley, and further in view of Takagi and Yang ʼ887. We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 17 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mahawili in view of Paisley and Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art. We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mahawili in view of Paisley, and further in view of Yang ʼ362. We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mahawili in view of Paisley, and further in view of Balog. We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Mahawili in view of Paisley and further in view of Takagi. 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 tc