Ex Parte Hecht et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 15, 2019

13827253 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 15, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/827,253 03/14/2013 Christian Hecht
57579 7590 01/17/2019
MURPHY, BILAK & HOMILLER/INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES
1255 Crescent Green
Suite 200
CARY, NC 27518
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1012-1138 / 2012P51984 1502
us
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, SOPHIA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2822
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/17/2019 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):
official@mbhiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTIAN HECHT, TOBIAS HOECHBAUER,
ROLAND RUPP, and HANS-JOACHIM SCHULZE
Appeal2018-000743
Application 13/827,253
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, MARK NAGUMO, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-5, 8, 10, 11, 13-18, 20, 23 and 24. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal2018-000743
Application 13/827,253
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below:
1. A method for manufacturing a silicon carbide device,
the method comprising:
providing a silicon carbide dispenser wafer comprising a
silicon face and a carbon face;
depositing a silicon carbide epitaxial layer on the silicon
face of the dispenser wafer, the silicon carbide epitaxial layer
comprising a silicon face facing away from the dispenser wafer;
implanting a designated dopant distribution into the
silicon face of the silicon carbide epitaxial layer, wherein the
designated dopant distribution is implanted before an acceptor
wafer is bonded onto the silicon carbide epitaxial layer;
implanting ions with a predefined energy characteristic to
form an implant zone within the silicon carbide epitaxial layer,
wherein the ions are implanted with an average depth within the
silicon carbide epitaxial layer corresponding to a designated
thickness of an epitaxial layer of the silicon carbide substrate
being manufactured;
bonding the acceptor wafer onto the silicon face of the
implanted silicon carbide epitaxial layer, so that the silicon
carbide epitaxial layer is arranged between the dispenser wafer
and the acceptor wafer; and
splitting the silicon carbide epitaxial layer along the
implant zone, so that a silicon carbide substrate represented by
the acceptor wafer with the epitaxial layer having the
designated thickness is obtained;
wherein the silicon carbide epitaxial layer is split, so that
the epitaxial layer of the silicon carbide substrate with the
2
Appeal2018-000743
Application 13/827,253
designated thickness has a carbon face opposite the silicon face
onto which the acceptor wafer is bonded,
wherein the carbon face of the silicon carbide epitaxial
layer with the designated thickness is accessible for silicon
carbide device fabrication,
wherein the designated dopant distribution is disposed at
a face of the silicon carbide epitaxial layer with the designated
thickness opposite to the carbon face accessible for silicon
carbide device fabrication.
Appellant1 requests review of the following rejections from the
Examiner's Final Office Action (App. Br. 5---6): 2, 3
I. Claims 1-5, 8, 10, 11, 14--18, 23, and 24 rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite for failing to particularly point
out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the
invention.
II. Claims 1-3, 8, 10, 11, 18, and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Kubota (US 2009/0221131 Al, published
September 3, 2009), Berger (US 2012/0083098 Al, published April 5, 2012)
and Larkin '800 (US 5,363,800, issued November 15, 1994).
III. Claims 4 and 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Kubota, Berger, Larkin '800, Celler (US 7,605,055 B2,
issued October 20, 2009), and Letertre (US 2003/0153163 Al, published
August 14, 2003).
1 INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG is the Applicant and is also identified
as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
2 The effective filing date of this application is before 16 March 2013, the
effective date of the America Invents Act. Accordingly, we refer to the pre-
AIA version of the statute.
3 The rejection statements listed in the opinion reflect the corrections noted
by the Examiner in the Answer. Ans. 2-5. Given that Appellant does not
object to the modifications in the Reply Brief of October 27, 2017, we adopt
the rejections statements in the Answer as presented for review on appeal.
3
Appeal2018-000743
Application 13/827,253
IV. Claims 14 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Kubota, Berger, Larkin '800, and Uchida (US
2009/0101918 Al, published April 23, 2009).
V. Claims 15 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Larkin '800, Kubota, Berger, Uchida, and Choi (US
2013/0175539 Al, published July 11, 2013).
VI. Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Larkin '978 (US 5,463,978, issued November 7, 1995), Kubota, Celler,
and Letertre.
VII. Claims 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Larkin '978, Kubota, Celler, Letertre, and Berger.
VIII. Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Letertre and Berger.
IX. Claims 1-3, 8, 10, 11, 18, and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
I03(a) as unpatentable over Kubota, Kong (US 4,912,064, issued March 27,
1990), and Berger.
X. Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Kubota, Kong, Celler, and Letertre.
OPINION
Indefiniteness Rejection
Appellant presents arguments for claims 1, 11, and 23. 4
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, 8, 10, 11, 14--
18, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for the reasons
presented by Appellant. We add the following for emphasis.
The Examiner concludes that the language of the last subparagraph of
claim 1 is indefinite because it is not clear if the face of the silicon carbide
4 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1, 20, and 23 as indefinite
on the grounds based on the claim language "wherein the carbon face of the
silicon carbide epitaxial layer with the designated thickness is adapted
accessible for silicon carbide device fabrication." Ans. 5.
4
Appeal2018-000743
Application 13/827,253
on which the designated dopant distribution is disposed on is the same as the
silicon face where the dopant is implanted. Final Act. 3. However, we
agree with Appellant that, when reading the claim as a whole, it is
sufficiently clear that the "face" refers to the silicon face of the epitaxial
silicon carbide layer. App. Br. 9.
We also find the Examiner's ambiguity concern as to whether the
final product of the method in claim 23 is a silicon carbide substrate, a
silicon carbide device or a silicon carbide device without basis for the
reasons presented by Appellant. Final Act. 3; App. Br. 9-10.
With respect to claim 11, the Examiner concludes that the language
associating the predefined energy, the designated thickness, and the drift
layer is indefinite because the Specification and the claims "do not provide
any specific predefined energy characteristic, do not provide any specific
designated thickness of the epitaxial layer as well as a corresponding
thickness of a drift layer." Final Act. 3--4. According to the Examiner, the
metes and bound of the claim are unclear because these limitations do not
differentiate the claimed substrate from the prior art's substrate. Id. at 4.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner is arguing the breadth of
the claim and that the disputed language is not indefinite. App. Br. 10. That
is, while the disputed language may render the scope of the claims broad,
claims are not indefinite on the basis of their breadth alone. See In re
Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788 (CCPA 1970) ("Breadth is not indefiniteness.").
Therefore, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, 8, 10,
11, 14--18, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for the
reasons presented by Appellants and given above.
5
Appeal2018-000743
Application 13/827,253
The Prior Art Rejections
Rejections II and III: Obviousness rejection based on Kubota, Berger, and
Larkin '800 (Claim 1)
Appellant presents arguments for claim 1 and relies on these
arguments to address the rejection of claims 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 18, and 24 as
well as the separate rejection of claims 4 and 5, all of which depends from
claim 1. See generally App. Br. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as
representative of the subject matter presented for review on appeal for these
rejections. Claims 2-5, 8, 10, 11, 18, and 24 stand or fall with claim 1.
a. Claim 1
The Examiner finds that the combined teachings of Kubota and
Berger suggest a method for manufacturing a silicon carbide device that
differs from the claimed invention in that the combined teachings do not
disclose forming the SiC epitaxial layer on the Si face of the SiC dispenser
wafer while leaving the exposed top carbon surface of the epitaxial layer
accessible for silicon carbide device fabrication. Final Act. 5-8; Ans. 9.
The Examiner turns to Larkin '800, directed to making semiconductor-
device-quality SiC films, for the missing feature. Larkin '800 col. 1, 11. 16-
18, 37--40. The Examiner finds Larkin '800 discloses that "either the Si face
or the C face can be polished for growth and used for the preferred
embodiment" and that "[t]he choice is determined by the intended use of the
SiC film to be grown." Ans. 9 (quoting from Larkin '800 col. 6, 11. 48-63).
Thus, the Examiner finds Larkin '800 suggests making semiconductor
devices on either the Si face or the C face. The Examiner determined that it
would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the method from
6
Appeal2018-000743
Application 13/827,253
the combined teachings of Kubota and Berger to make a SiC wafer where
the carbon face is accessible for silicon carbide device fabrication. Final
Act. 8-9; Ans. 9.
In addressing this rejection, Appellant does not dispute that Kubota' s
SiC wafer has a silicon side and a carbon side. Instead, Appellant argues
that Larkin '800 does not teach or suggest the feature of a substrate (the
claimed dispenser wafer) being bonded to another wafer ( the claimed
acceptor wafer) and turned around and split so that an "epitaxial layer of the
silicon carbide substrate with the designated thickness" having an exposed
carbon face ends up on an upper surface of the resulting acceptor wafer.
App. Br. 12. Appellant also argues that Larkin '800 fails to teach or suggest
an implementation of a designated doping distribution to a back side of a
semiconductor device. Id. Appellant contends Larkin '800 merely describes
the use of conventional doping techniques. Id. at 13. That is, Appellant
argues that Larkin '800 does not teach the claimed method.
We are unpersuaded of reversible error in the Examiner's
determination of obviousness. It is well-established that nonobviousness
cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the
rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413,425 (CCPA 1981) ("The test [for obviousness] is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art."). As the Examiner explains, Larkin '800 was not relied upon to
teach the argued features. Ans. 6. Instead, the Examiner relied upon Kubota
and Berger as teaching these features. Id. Larkin '800 was principally cited
to teach that an SiC wafer can undergo further processing on either the
7
Appeal2018-000743
Application 13/827,253
silicon face or the carbon face of an SiC wafer, as desired. Id. at 9. Given
this disclosure, Appellant has not adequately explained why one skilled in
the art would not have motivated to modify the method of the combined
teachings of Kubota and Berger in view of Larkin '800 so as to produce a
SiC wafer having a carbon face accessible for silicon carbide device
fabrication and reasonably expect the resulting technique to provide such a
SiC wafer. In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894,904 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ("For
obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of
success."). Thus, by arguing Larkin '800 separately, Appellant's arguments
do not address the rejection presented by the Examiner.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-5, 8,
10, 11, 18, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by the
Examiner and given above. We also affirm the alternate rational for the
rejection of claim 1 for the same reasons. Final Act. 9-13; Ans. 10-11.
Rejection IV: Obviousness rejection based on Kubota, Berger, Larkin '800,
and Uchida (Claims 14 and 17)
a. Claim 14
Claim 14 requires manufacturing the electrical silicon carbide device
on the carbon face of the epitaxial layer of the silicon carbide substrate.
The Examiner finds that this feature is taught by Larkin '800' s
disclosure that either the Si face or the C face can be polished for growth, as
determined by the intended use of the SiC film to be grown. Final Act. 26;
Larkin '800, col. 6, 11. 58-63. The Examiner cites Uchida to further support
the finding that this feature was known to those skilled in the art. Final Act.
26-27; Uchida Figure 1, ,r 137.
8
Appeal2018-000743
Application 13/827,253
Appellant argues that Kubota, Berger, and Larkin '800 are directed to
substrate manufacturing while Uchida is directed to the fabrication of a
MOSFET that minimizes the misalignment between "the actual location[ s]
of the source electrode 109 from the expected one due to the misalignment
of the photomask with a resist film." App. Br. 26 (emphasis omitted).
According to Appellant, there is no motivation for one skilled in the art to
look at Uchida to improve the substrate manufacturing methods taught by
Larkin '800, Berger, and Kubota given that Uchida is directed to a different
fabrication process. Id.
We need not address Uchida because Larkin '800 teaches the disputed
feature. Ans. 14.
b. Claim 17
Claim 17 requires that the electrical silicon carbide device comprises a
blocking voltage above 500V.
The Examiner determines that Larkin '800's disclosure that silicon
carbide possesses properties that should make it a superior semiconductor
for applications that involve high temperature, high power, high radiation,
and/or high frequency (Larkin '800 col. 1, 11. 25-30) and Berger's disclosure
that a composite substrate including the monocrystalline semiconductor
layer is used to form semiconductor devices including IGBT and power
devices (Berger Figure 7F, ,r,r 15, 42, and 130) would have rendered obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention the modification
of the combined teachings of the cited art to provide an electrical silicon
carbide device comprising a blocking voltage above 500V. Final Act. 27.
9
Appeal2018-000743
Application 13/827,253
We agree with Appellant that there is reversible error in the
Examiner's determination of obviousness for this claim. App. Br. 26-27.
"[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoted with
approval inKSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007)). The
Examiner has not provided an adequate technical explanation of why or how
one skilled in the art would have modified the combined teachings of the
cited art to incorporate an electrical silicon carbide device comprising a
blocking voltage above 500V. The Examiner has not adequately explained
why the noted portions of Larkin and Berger would have led one skilled in
the art to the subject matter of claim 17. Therefore, the Examiner's
articulated reason for combining the references lacks rational underpinning.
Accordingly, we affirm the prior art rejection of claim 14 for the
reasons given by the Examiner and presented above. However, we reverse
the rejection of claim 17 for the reasons presented by Appellant and given
above.
Rejection V: Obviousness rejection based on Larkin '800, Kubota, Berger,
Uchida, and Choi (Claims 15 and 16)
Appellant essentially relies on the same line of argument in addressing
the rejection of claims 15 and 16. App. Br. 23-25. Accordingly, we limit
our discussion to claim 15.
10
Appeal2018-000743
Application 13/827,253
a. Claim 15
Claim 15 requires attaching the silicon carbide substrate with the
manufactured electrical silicon carbide device to a carrier wafer facing the
electrical silicon carbide device; and removing the acceptor wafer from the
epitaxial layer comprising the electrical silicon carbide device attached to
the carrier wafer.
The Examiner finds that this feature is taught by Choi. Final Act. 28;
Choi Figures 6A---6F, ,r 81. The Examiner determines that it would have
been obvious to modify the combined teachings of Larkin '800, Kubota,
Berger, and Uchida to incorporate this feature for purposes including
removal of low cost, low quality substrate from the device structure or
reclaiming the expensive substrate from the device structure for reuse. Final
Act. 28-29.
Appellant argues that Berger's final composite wafer includes a
metallization layer which is intentionally included in the wafer to provide
good ohmic electrical connection between carrier wafer and semiconductor
layer. App. Br. 24; Berger ,r 124. According to Appellant, if Berger's wafer
713 were to be attached to a first substrate 100 as taught by Choi following
which first substrate 100 were to be removed as taught in Choi's FIG. 6E, the
resulting structure would include metallization layer 770 completely
covering an upper surface of buffer layer 110. App. Br. 24. Thus, Appellant
contends that this would prevent the ion implantation (subsequently carried
out as shown in Choi's FIG. 6G) from reaching channel layer 120 thus
resulting in a modified device that is unsuitable for its intended purposes.
Id.
11
Appeal2018-000743
Application 13/827,253
We disagree with Appellant. Here, the Examiner finds that Kubota
does not include a metallization layer. Ans. 14. Moreover, the metallization
layer 770 disclosed in Berger is an optional layer. Berger ,r,r 135-137 ..
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 15 and 16.
Rejections VI and VII: Obviousness rejection based on Larkin '978, Kubota,
Celler, and Letertre (Claim 13)
Appellant presents arguments for independent claim 13 but does not
present separate arguments for separately rejected dependent claim 23. See
generally App. Br. Accordingly, we select claim 13 as representative of the
subject matter presented for review on appeal for these rejections. Claim 23
stands or falls with claim 13.
Claim 13 is directed to a method of making a SiC substrate that
includes repetition of the implantation, bonding and splitting steps to
maximize the use of a silicon carbide dispensing wafer.
We refer to the Examiner's Final Action for a statement of the
rejection. Final Act. 19-22. Briefly, the Examiner relies on the teachings of
Celler and Letertre, both directed to semiconductor substrates, to teach as
known to repeat the implantation, bonding and splitting steps to maximize
the use of a silicon carbide dispensing wafer. Final Act. 21-22; Celler col.
1, 11. 5-8, col. 7, 11. 5-21; Letertre ,r,r 2, 4, 5, and 56.
Appellants argue Celler relates to the repeated manufacture of thin
diamond layers, a material completely different from silicon carbide and
makes no mention of "bonding another acceptor wafer onto the remaining
silicon carbide epitaxial layer" or of "splitting the remaining silicon carbide
epitaxial layer along the another implant zone" while Letertre is directed to
12
Appeal2018-000743
Application 13/827,253
the manufacturing of a SiC substrate from a larger SiC single crystal. App.
Br. 21; Celler col. 7, 11. 5-21; Letertre ,r,r 13, 14. Thus, Appellant contends
that one skilled in the art would not be motivated to modify the method from
the teachings of Larkin '978 and Kubota to incorporate the disputed
additional steps from the teachings of Celler and Letertre. App. Br. 21.
We are unpersuaded by these arguments. We agree with the
Examiner that Appellant's arguments do not address the rejection presented
by the Examiner. Ans. 11. The Examiner relies on Celler and Letertre for
their teaching of reusing donor wafers in a wafer manufacturing process
where desired. Final Act. 21-22; Celler col. 1, 11. 5-8, col. 7, 11. 5-21;
Letertre ,r,r 2, 4, 5, 56. Appellant has not persuasively disputed the
Examiner's stated reason for combining these references' teachings.
Appellant has not adequately explained why one skilled in the art, using no
more than ordinary creativity, would not have been capable of reusing the
donor substrate from the combined teachings of Larkin '978 and Kubota, as
taught by Celler and Letertre, to reduce manufacturing costs. Final Act. 22;
Ans. 12-13. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,421 (2007)
("A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton."); see also In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
(presuming skill on the part of one of ordinary skill in the art.). Appellant's
arguments, thus, do not point to error in the determination of obviousness.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 13 and 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by the Examiner and
given above. We also affirm the alternate rational for the rejection of claim
13 for the same reasons. Final Act. 22-25.
13
Appeal2018-000743
Application 13/827,253
Rejections VIII: Obviousness rejection based on Letertre and Berger
(Claim 20)
Claim 20 is directed to a silicon carbide device comprising a carrier
wafer being a graphite wafer coated with silicon carbide.
We refer to the Examiner's Final Action for a statement of the
rejection. Final Act. 29-31.
Appellant argues that the combined teachings of the cited art would
not have led one skilled in the art to the claimed invention because the
Examiner does not explain why the material of Letertre's carrier wafer is
inadequate as it is and in need of replacement with Berger's carrier graphite
wafer coated with silicon carbide material. App. Br. 22.
We are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's determination of
obviousness by this argument. It is well-established that the test [for
obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981).
The Examiner finds Letertre discloses a silicon carbide device that
differs from the claimed invention in that it does not comprise a carrier
wafer being a graphite wafer coated with silicon carbide. Final Act. 29-30.
The Examiner finds Berger discloses the use of the claimed carrier web in
the manufacturing of a composite wafer for use in semiconductor devices.
Id. at 30. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to use Berger's carrier wafer as the carrier wafer
in Letertre' s device for the purpose of providing suitable material of carrier
wafer to form a thermally and chemically stable carrier wafer as disclosed
by Berger. Id. at 30-31. Appellant has not adequately explained why the
14
Appeal2018-000743
Application 13/827,253
carrier wafer of Berger would be unsuitable for the silicon carbide device of
Letertre. Appellant has not adequately explained why one skilled in the art
would not have been capable of combining the teachings of Letertre and
Berger, as proposed by the Examiner, and reasonably expect Berger's carrier
wafer would perform adequately as a carrier web in the device of Letertre.
In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894,904 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ("For obviousness under
§ 103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success."). Thus,
Appellant's arguments do not point to reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by the Examiner and given above.
Rejections IX and X· Obviousness rejection based on Kubota and Kong
From the Final Action, the Examiner appears to rely on Kong as an
alternate to the Larkin '800 and Larkin '978 references respectively cited in
Rejections II and VI. Compare Final Act. 8-9 and 19-20 with Final Act 36-
37 and 44--45, respectively. Appellant does not present specific arguments
addressing Rejections IX and X. Therefore, to the extent that Appellant may
be relying on the arguments presented for Rejections II and VI to address the
rejections based on Kubota and Kong, we again find the arguments
unpersuasive of Examiner error for the reasons given above.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, 10,
11, 13, 18, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by the
Examiner and given above.
ORDER
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, 8, 10, 11, 14--18, 23, and 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is reversed.
15
Appeal2018-000743
Application 13/827,253
TheExaminer'spriorartrejectionsofclaims 1-5, 8, 10, 11, 13-1618,
20, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.
The Examiner's prior art rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
Because the affirmed rejections do not reach all the claims, our
decision is an affirmance-in-part.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
16