Ex Parte Luter et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 28, 2018

13651981 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/651,981 10/15/2012
127660 7590 08/30/2018
PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG LLP
One Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
William L. Luter
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.
0150021.CIP 8041
EXAMINER
QI,HUA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1714
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2018 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):
patent@piblaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM L. LUTER, VERLIN A. LAUHER,
DICKS. WILLIAMS, HOWARD P. ZINSCHLAG,
NEIL MIDDENDORF, and DAVID J. DUBIEL
Appeal 2017-011112
Application 13/651,981
Technology Center 1700
Before DONNA M. PRAISS, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner's June 30, 2016, decision finally rejecting claims 1-5, 8-10, 12,
and 13 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ("Final Act."). We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 The Applicant/ Appellant is GTAT IP HOLDING LLC, which is also
identified as the real party in interest (Br. 2).
Appeal 2017-011112
Application 13/651,981
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's application is directed to a Czochralski (CZ) growth
system for preparing silicon wafers used in photovoltaic solar cells
(Abstract, Spec. ,r 3). The system includes a growth chamber, a feed port,
and a feed chamber comprising a container for feedstock and a feeder.
According to the Specification, in a CZ growth system, the silicon is melted
in a crucible to its liquid state (Spec. ,r 3). A small crystalline silicon seed
with a predetermined crystalline orientation is contacted with the melt and
then slowly withdrawn (id.). The liquid silicon freezes on the crystalline
seed with the same orientation as that of the seed, so that as the seed is
slowly raised away from the melt it forms a growing crystalline ingot of
silicon having a final length typically of a meter or more and a diameter
typically of hundreds of millimeters (id.).
As shown in FIG. 1, the claimed CZ system has a growth chamber
comprising crucible chamber 12 which
includes double walled crucible 16,
which in tum comprises inner wall 20
defining inner zone 22 and outer wall
24 which defines outer zone 26 (Spec.
,r 23). Aperture 28 in inner wall 20
provides fluid communication between
inner zone 22 and outer zone 26 (id.).
Solid silicon particles 60 are supplied
by feeder 62 into outer zone 26, where
they are melted by heaters 30 and 32.
2
f;G, ~ ~i~t:,'i.;·:- ~ .;:m::s~:.-.:.:-.i.:t~i:,ioJ ':i:.".,~:
~:,,,f .::::, :~P.t)(:i-:fa::1;,.-n~ \{i :J~· :;-!~t.~1i.,:.:..:
Appeal 2017-011112
Application 13/651,981
Fig. 1 shows a cross-sectional view of an embodiment of the claimed
invention.
Details of the claimed invention are set forth in representative claim 1,
which is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Brief
(emphasis added):
1. A Czochralski growth system, comprising:
a growth chamber comprising a crucible, at least one
sidewall, a top wall, a pedestal for supporting the crucible, a
drop box fixedly mounted to an inside of the growth chamber,
and a pull mechanism for retractably supporting a seed for
contacting a melt contained in the crucible, wherein the
crucible comprises an inner zone positioned under the pull
mechanism and an annular outer zone in fluid communication
with the inner zone and disposed under a spout of the drop box;
a feed port positioned in the at least one sidewall of the
growth chamber so that feedstock enters the growth chamber
having overall path of delivery of the feedstock of between 0°
and about 20° from horizontal at a center of the feed port and
into the outer zone of the crucible; and
a feed chamber attached to the growth chamber at the
feed port, the feed chamber comprising a feed hopper, a funnel
spout for the feedstock and a feeder insertable into the growth
chamber through the feed port to supply the feedstock into the
growth chamber.
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 4, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Arvidson2 in view of Sahr3 and Taguchi. 4
2 Arvidson et al., US 2003/0159647 Al, published August 28, 2003.
3 Sahr et al., US 2009/0158993 Al, published June 25, 2009.
4 Taguchi et al, US 5,858,087, issued January 12, 1999.
3
Appeal 2017-011112
Application 13/651,981
2. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Arvidson in view of Sahr, and Taguchi, and further in
view of Miyahara. 5
3. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Arvidson in view of Sahr, and Taguchi, and further in view of Nakashima. 6
4. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Arvidson in view of Sahr, and Taguchi, and further in view of
Williams. 7
5. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Arvidson in view of Sahr, and Taguchi, and further in view of Kamio. 8
DISCUSSION
Appellant's arguments are solely directed to the rejection of claim 1
(Br. 5-12). Based upon the lack of arguments directed to the dependent
claims and the subsidiary rejections, our analysis will focus on the rejection
of claim 1 over Arvidson in view of Sahr and Taguchi. The remaining
claims will stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
Non-analogous art argument. Appellant's first argument seeking
reversal of the rejection is that Sahr is not analogous art and, therefore, not
properly combinable with Arvidson and Taguchi (Br. 5-8). In order to be
properly relied upon in an obviousness analysis, a prior art reference must
qualify as "analogous art," i.e., it must satisfy one of the following conditions:
5 Miyahara et al., JP 09175883 A, published July 8, 2009. We will rely on
the machine translation of record, as have Appellant and the Examiner.
6 Nakashima et al., US 7,001,456 B2, issued February 21, 2006.
7 Williams et al., US 2011/0006240 Al, published January 13, 2011.
8 Kamio et al., US 5,312,600, issued May 17, 1994.
4
Appeal 2017-011112
Application 13/651,981
(i) the reference must be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed
invention; or (ii) the reference must be reasonably pertinent to the particular
problem with which the inventor is involved. Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA
Entm't, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011). "A reference is
reasonably pertinent if it, as a result of its subject matter, 'logically would
have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his
problem."' K-TEC, Inc. v. Vita-Mix Corp., 696 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (citing Innovention Toys, 637 F.3d at 1321).
Appellant argues that Sahr is not from the same field as the
application on appeal (and presumably both Arvidson and Taguchi), because
Sahr is directed to "a completely different growth system," because it
describes a directional solidification (DS) system rather than a CZ system
(Br. 5---6). According to Appellant, because the DS system creates the
crystal by controlled freezing of a predetermined amount of liquid silicon, it
is unconcerned with splashing while the silicon particles are introduced into
the crucible, while the CZ system, on the other hand, draws up the ingot out
of liquid silicon in a continuous fashion and, therefore, has to be concerned
with the introduction of new feedstock (Br. 6). Therefore, Appellant
contends, Sahr is not from the same field as Arvidson and Taguchi ( and the
application on appeal) (id.).
With respect to the second prong of the analogous art test ( whether the
reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
inventor is involved), Appellant argues that:
Sahr's feeder for its DSS growth system is not reasonably
pertinent because Sahr's DSS growth system neither (1)
addresses the same problems associated with introducing
feedstock during the growth process nor (2) has any application
in the DSS growth system of Sahr itself.
5
Appeal 2017-011112
Application 13/651,981
(Br. 7). Appellant elaborates on this argument by asserting that the purpose
of Sahr' s system is to counteract volumetric shrinkage during the melting of
the raw material in the melting crucible while Appellant's purpose is to
prevent splashing or rebound while introducing the feedstock into the
crucible during the growth phase (Br. 8). Therefore, according to Appellant,
a person seeking to improve a CZ process would not look to Sahr' s
teachings (id.).
Appellant's argument is not persuasive. The Examiner finds that the
problem with which the inventors were concerned was to prevent feedstock
splashing resulting from an inappropriate feedstock delivery angle/slope
(Ans. 5). Appellant does not directly contest this finding. The Examiner
further finds that Sahr explicitly teaches that its conveying means 32 is at an
angle which "effectively prevents splashing" (id.). Appellant does not refute
this finding either.
Accordingly, Appellant has not demonstrated reversible error in the
Examiner's determination that Sahr is reasonably pertinent to the particular
problem with which Appellant was concerned (i.e. limiting splashing) and,
therefore, is analogous art.
The prior art does not teach every limitation of the claimed
invention. Appellant further argues that the cited art does not teach, suggest,
or otherwise render obvious several limitation recited in claim 1, including
the presence of "a drop box fixedly mounted to the inside of the growth
chamber" (Br. 9--10). The Examiner finds that Arvidson's lance 208, which
is attached to feed tube 207 corresponds to the claimed drop box (Final Act.
5, citing Arvidson ,r,r 170-178, Fig. 2). The Examiner further finds that:
6
Appeal 2017-011112
Application 13/651,981
[ A ]s shown in fig 2, the primary reference to Arvidson ([O 171])
teaches that lance 208 is attached to the feed tube 207 in the
sidewall of the growth chamber 101. It is further noted that
[O 171] of Arvidson describes that a charge isolation lock 210 is
used for isolating the feedstock housing 209 from the growth
chamber 101 through the feed tube 207, during pulling an ingot
from the crucible 104. Per this particular teaching[] of
Arvidson, one [having] ordinary skill in the art would readily be
able to recognize that the lance 208 attached to the feed tube
207 is fixedly mounted to an inside of the growth chamber 101,
when pulling the ingot from the crucible 104; e.g., Arvidson
does teach the instantly claimed drop box fixedly mounted to an
inside of the growth chamber.
(Ans. 7-8). In essence, the Examiner finds that lance 208 is mounted to feed
tube 207, which in tum is fixed to the inside of growth chamber 101.
Appellant does not challenge this finding. Instead, Appellant argues that
because Arvidson teaches that lance 208 is mounted to feed tube 207, it
cannot be said to be "fixedly mounted to an inside of the growth box" (Br.
9). This argument is not persuasive.
It is well established that "the PTO must give claims their broadest
reasonable construction consistent with the specification. Therefore, we
look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but
otherwise apply a broad interpretation." In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ( citation omitted). In this instance, the
Examiner has found that lance 208 is fixedly mounted to the inside of the
growth chamber, via its connection to feed tube 207. Appellant has not
pointed to anything in the claim language or the Specification which would
require interpreting the claim language to mandate a direct connection
between the drop box and the inside of the growth chamber. Accordingly,
any connection which results in the drop box being fixedly mounted to an
7
Appeal 2017-011112
Application 13/651,981
inside of the growth chamber - such as the one the Examiner finds is
disclosed by Arvidson- satisfies this limitation. Therefore, Appellant has
not shown reversible error in the Examiner's determination that the cited art
teaches this limitation.
Appellant also argues that the claimed combination does not teach "an
overall path of delivery of the feedstock between 0° and 20° from
horizontal at a center of the feed port and into the outer zone of the
crucible" (Br. 10-11). The Examiner finds that this feature is taught by
Sahr (Final Act. 4--5).
Appellant argues that "at no time does Sahr disclose that its overall
path of delivery between a center of the feed port and crucible 38 (shown by
the dotted arrow in Appellant's annotated figure from Sahr below) is
between 0° and 20°" (Br. 12):
8
Appeal 2017-011112
Application 13/651,981
A version of Sahr's FIG. 59 annotated by Appellant to show the overall path
of delivery of the feedstock.
According to Appellant, paragraph 54 of Sahr discloses that the
conveying means can be positioned closer to the center of the crucible
without discussion of the angle of the overall path of delivery (Br. 12).
Regarding Sahr's disclosure of horizontal displacement, Appellant contends
that "even if the conveying means is completely horizontal, that does not
mean that the overall path of delivery from the feed port to the crucible is
between OQ and 20Q" because "conveying means 32 could be introduced
above the crucible in a position that would still result in an overall path of
delivery of more than 20Q" (Br. 12).
The Examiner finds that the claimed feature is taught by Sahr to
prevent melt splashing by displacing conveying means 32 or 11 (feed port)
"at a horizontal position," which the Examiner equates to meaning "OQ from
horizontal" (Final Act. 4--5, citing Sahr FIGS. 1---6, ,r,r 23, 45, 54, 56).
The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case
of obviousness based on an inherent or explicit disclosure of the claimed
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992) ("[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the
prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability."). To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the
Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described
or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on the
knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
9 Appellant states this drawing is a marked up version of Sahr' s Fig. 1 (Br.
12). The Examiner correctly notes that this is Fig. 5 of Sahr (Ans. 9).
9
Appeal 2017-011112
Application 13/651,981
1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In this instance, the preponderance of the evidence of
record does not support the Examiner's finding that Sahr teaches an overall
path of delivery of the feedstock having an angle of between 0° and 20°, as
set forth in claim 1. 10
The claim language states that the "overall path of delivery of the
feedstock" is "between 0° and 20° from horizontal at a center of the feed
port and into the outer zone of the crucible." The Examiner relies on the
disclosure of Sahr's ,r,r 45, 54, and 56 as teaching that Sahr's conveying
means 32 is in a horizontal position (Final Act. 4--5). However, we are
persuaded by Appellant's argument that what these paragraphs state is
merely that conveying means 32 can be "displaced in a horizontal direction."
That is, Sahr does not disclose that conveying means 3 2 is horizontal ( or at a
slope of no more than 20°), but only that the position of the conveying
means can be moved from side to side, so that the end of conveying means
can be closer or farther from the edge of the crucible.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 1. As none of the art
relied on in the remaining rejections addresses this issue, we also reverse
those rejections for the same reason.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1, 4, and 8-10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Arvidson in view of Sahr and
Taguchi.
10 Sahr states that Fig. 3---6 are schematics, and does not indicate that they are
to scale. The drawing show some slope to conveying means 32, but does not
provide a persuasive basis for concluding that this slope is less than 20°.
10
Appeal 2017-011112
Application 13/651,981
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Arvidson in view of Sahr, and Taguchi, and further in
view of Miyahara.
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Arvidson in view of Sahr, and Taguchi, and further in view
of Nakashima.
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Arvidson in view of Sahr, and Taguchi, and further in
view of Williams.
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Arvidson in view of Sahr, and Taguchi, and further in
view of Kamio.
REVERSED
11