Ex Parte Preti

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 22, 2018

13131011 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/131,0ll 05/24/2011 1009 7590 03/26/2018 KING & SCHICKLI, PLLC 800 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 200 LEXINGTON, KY 40503 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Mario Preti 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. 229-P-06 2428 EXAMINER CROWELL, ANNA M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1716 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/26/2018 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): uspto@iplawl.net laura@iplawl.net PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte MARIO PRETI Appeal 201 7-003992 Application 13/131,011 Technology Center 1 700 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, DONNA M. PRAISS, and SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEALl STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 7, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. Â§103(a) as obvious over Martin3 in view of Werdecker, 4 and adding various further prior 1 In explaining our Decision, we cite to the Specification of May 24, 2011 (Spec.), Final Office Action of October 1, 2015 (Final), Appeal Brief of March 4, 2016 (Appeal Br.), and Examiner's Answer of September 21, 2016 (Ans.). 2 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as LPE S.P.A. Br. 3. 3 Martin et al., EP 014 7967 A2, published July 10, 1985. 4 Werdecker et al., WO 2008/040615 Al, published April 10, 2008. As Appellant has not objected to the Examiner's use of US 2009/0266110 as the English language equivalent, we also rely on and cite to US 2009/0266110. Appeal 2017-003992 Application 13/131,011 art references to reject claims 4-6, 8, and 11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. The claims are directed to a reaction chamber including a reflecting layer covering the outside of a hollow quartz piece section of the reaction chamber. Br. 18 (claims appendix, claim 1). The reflecting layer is made from a quartz-based material and is obtained from a semiliquid slurry of dispersed amorphous quartz particles. Id. The slurry is applied, dried, and hot sintered. Id. The reflecting layer has a thickness in the range of 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm and is capable of reflecting back infrared radiation within the wavelength range of 1,000 nm to 10,000 nm at an average reflectivity of 70- 90%. Id. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A reaction chamber of an epitaxial reactor consisting essentially of a hollow quartz piece, wherein said hollow quartz piece comprises a quartz piece section having the shape of a cylinder or a prism or a cone or a pyramid and an axial through hole provided in said quartz piece section, wherein said quartz piece section is adapted to define, according to two of three directions, a reaction and deposition zone and to house at least one susceptor to be heated inside said axial through hole, wherein said chamber comprises a reflecting layer adapted to reflect back infrared radiations emitted by said susceptor in the wavelength range between 1'000 nm and 10'000 nm wherein said reflecting layer is made of a quartz-based material, and wherein said reflecting layer is applied to said quartz piece section and/or to a quartz component of said reaction chamber; wherein said quartz piece section has an outside and said reflecting layer is located on the outside of said quartz piece section and covers it; wherein said reflecting layer has a thickness in the range of 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm; 2 Appeal 2017-003992 Application 13/131,011 wherein said reflecting layer is obtained from a semiliquid slurry having a content of dispersed amorphous quartz particles, that is applied, dried and hot sintered, whereby said obtained reflecting layer is capable of reflecting back the infrared radiations within said wavelength range at an average reflectivity of 70-90%. Br. 18 (claims appendix, claim 1) (formatting added). Appellant argues the claims and rejections as a group, focusing on the rejection of claim 1. Br. 10. Thus, we confine our discussion to the rejection of claim 1. OPINION The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over Martin in view of W erdecker. Final 2. There is no dispute that Martin discloses a reaction chamber including a reflective layer covering the outside of a hollow quartz piece section or that the reflective layer is made of a quartz-based material. Compare Br. 10-15, with Final 2-3. Martin depicts such a structure in Figure 9, which shows a reflective layer 7 4 covering a hollow quartz piece section (inner quartz bell jar 61). Martin 27:1-3. The configuration with the reflective layer on the outside of the quartz piece section is also shown in Figure 7, which shows reflecting layer 55 on chamber wall 51. Martin 19:16-18. The Examiner acknowledges that Martin fails to teach forming the reflecting layer from a semi-liquid slurry of dispersed amorphous quartz particles that is applied, dried, and hot sintered or forming the layer to the thickness of 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm. Final 3. The Examiner, however, concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make Martin's reflecting layer from the quartz slurry of W erdecker at a thickness within the range of claim 1 because Werdecker shows that the slurry 3 Appeal 2017-003992 Application 13/131,011 material and thicknesses were conventional for producing diffusely reflecting reflectors of quartz glass. Final 4. Appellant contends the combination of Werdecker is improper because Werdecker is non-analogous art, the teachings of Werdecker are incompatible with Martin, and Martin teaches away from its combination with Werdecker. Br. 10-17. Non-Analogous Art We begin with the question of whether Werdecker is analogous art. We begin here because we must determine the scope and content of the art before considering the question of whether the reaction chamber of the claims would have been obvious from the combined teachings of Martin and Werdecker. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (explaining that determining what is "prior art" is a prerequisite to determining whether any difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art would have been obvious). As stated in Clay: Two criteria have evolved for determining whether prior art is analogous: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. Clay, 966 F.2d at 658-59. The Examiner finds that Werdecker is reasonably pertinent to Appellant's problem. Ans. 5. Appellant contends that Werdecker is not pertinent to the problems of epitaxial reactors and is, thus, non-analogous art. Br. 16. A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's finding. The Examiner finds that Werdecker "addresses the same problem of using reflective layers and improving reflectivity of a reflective material." Ans. 5. We agree. Appellant's field of endeavor relates to reaction chambers of 4 Appeal 2017-003992 Application 13/131,011 epitaxial reactors, but the problem Appellant is attempting to solve is a problem with the reflective layer conventionally placed on the hollow quartz piece section of the chamber. Spec. 1:3, 2:9-15, 3:13-18. According to the Specification, Appellant was attempting to solve a problem with the gold- based reflective layer of the prior art. Spec. 3:13-18, 4:1-8. The problem was that the gold layer would detach from the quartz surface of the reaction chamber. Spec. 4:1-8. Thus, Appellant was seeking a replacement reflective layer. "A reference is reasonably pertinent if ... it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem." In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In considering the reflective layer detachment problem, those of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to other reflective materials with reflective properties similar to gold and compatible with the quartz of the reaction chamber. Werdecker discloses a quartz-based silicon dioxide slurry that can be coated onto a carrier to form an optical reflector with enhanced reflection in the infrared range. Werdecker iii! 6, 33. A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's finding that Werdecker is reasonably pertinent to the problem facing Appellant, is analogous art, and, thus, within the scope and content of the prior art to be considered when determining obviousness. Obviousness of the Difference: Reason to Combine Given that Werdecker is analogous art to be considered in determining obviousness, the next question arising is: Has Appellant identified a reversible error in the Examiner's finding of a reason to use Werdecker's slurry-based silicon dioxide material in Martin's reflective layer? Appellant has not identified such an error. 5 Appeal 2017-003992 Application 13/131,011 The Examiner finds a reason to use Werdecker's slurry-based reflective material in Martin's reflective layer based on conventionally known attributes Werdecker teaches for the slurry-based silicon dioxide. Final 3-4. Martin discloses that the outside reflective layer 55 of the Figure 7 embodiment is designed to radiate a substantial percentage of the energy radiated from the front surface of the susceptor 52 and wafers 54. Martin 20:1-6. Martin wishes to minimize radiant heat loss from the front side of the wafers and reduce the thermal gradient within the wafers. Martin 20:6- 22. The susceptor radiates infrared radiation at wavelengths between about 0.5 microns and 5 microns with the highest intensity of radiation being in the 1-3 micron range. Id. About 75% of the radiated infrared energy is in the 0.5 micron to 4 micron band. Id. Thus, Martin would seek a reflective material that reflects a substantial percentage of the infrared radiation in the disclosed wavelengths to minimize heat loss and reduce the thermal gradient. Indeed, Martin discloses that "[c]oating 55 is preferably formed to have a high reflectance value for infrared radiation in that band" and suggests that there are "[a] number of suitable metal layers" and these include a gold plated layer. Martin 20:32-21:7. According to Martin, a plated gold layer will reflect about 97% of all energy in the 0.5 to 4 micron band. Id. Martin discloses that the other metals have a very high reflectivity for infrared radiation in the 0.5 to 4 micron band, id., but does not disclose any restriction on the useful reflectivity percentage or, for that matter, disclose any percentage of average reflectivity in the 1,000 nm to 10,000 nm wavelength range for the outer reflective layer. Martin further states that "any type of infrared reflecting coating design may be utilized, including multiple layer optical coatings which are designed to have high reflection in the near infrared over a relatively broad band of wavelengths." Martin 22:15-20. Thus, Martin does not limit the reflective layer material to metals. Nor does Martin define "high reflection." 6 Appeal 2017-003992 Application 13/131,011 When describing a different embodiment in which the reflective layer is formed on the inner surface of the chamber wall, Martin discloses that gold cannot be used, but other metals that have low chemical activity and contamination effect on silicon wafers may be used as can a layer of silicon. Martin 23:4-28. Pure silicon, according to Martin, has an average reflectivity greater than 30% over the infrared wavelengths radiated by the susceptor. Martin 23:14-28. Martin further discloses inner coatings of multi-layer reflective materials such as a metal layer coated by a dielectric layer such as silicon dioxide and a preferred embodiment employing alternative layers of silicon and silicon dioxide. Martin 23:20-24: 12. Martin further discloses an inner reflective coating using six layers, each about 0.5 microns thick to produce a coating with an average reflectivity of about 60% in the wavelength region between 0.6-2.6 microns. Martin 24:4-12. Martin further discloses that, in providing an infrared coating on the inner surface of the reactor, it is preferred to tailor the degree of reflectance and absorption of infrared energy so some energy is absorbed into the chamber walls to achieve effective cool down after wafer processing. Martin 24:13-32. Martin's disclosure of silicon dioxide reflective layers suggests that silicon dioxide coatings were known to be reflective. Appellant contends that Martin teaches away from its combination with Werdecker. Br. 10-12. We disagree. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). As stated above, Martin suggests that silicon dioxide materials are useful in reflective layers on quartz reaction chambers. Werdecker also suggests that silicon dioxide coatings are useful as reflective layers on quartz carriers. Werdecker iii! 6, 51. The use of Werdecker's silicon dioxide reflective material would have been obvious because it would have been expected to predictably provide the reflectivity desired by Martin. 7 Appeal 2017-003992 Application 13/131,011 Much of Appellant's argument concerns Martin's teaching of a preferred inner multilayer coating of alternating silicon and silicon dioxide layers with an average reflectivity of about 60%. Br. 10-12. The argument is not persuasive because it is directed to the embodiment with an inner reflective layer, not the embodiment with the outer reflective layer. Martin's teachings, in fact, support the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness. Martin discloses a variety of materials for use in the reflective layer and does not limit the selection. Martin 20:32-21:7. Although Martin discloses using a gold layer with 97% reflectivity in the 0.5 to 4 micron band, Martin 21:2-4, Martin neither discloses the average reflectivity percentage for the 1,000 nm to 10,000 nm wavelength range nor places limits on the range of average reflectivity. The combination of Martin and Werdecker suggests applying a slurry of silicon dioxide to the reaction chamber of Martin to form a reflective layer having the average reflectivity of 70-90% required by claim 1. Werdecker teaches using a slurry-based silicon dioxide reflective layer. The layer formed in Werdecker's example 1 has a reflection of around 95% in the wavelength range between about 300 nm and 2100 nm. Werdecker if 92. The Examiner states that "it is conventionally known in the art, that the average reflectivity of quartz material to be lowered when operating in the mid-Infrared wavelength range (i.e. over 3000 nm)" and finds that the average reflectivity of Werdecker's silicon dioxide reflective layer would be within the range of the claims, i.e., an average reflectivity of 70-90% over wavelengths of 1000- 10,000 nm as required by claim 1. Ans. 3. Appellant does not dispute this finding. No reply brief was filed. Appellant further contends that the scale of the reflective layer taught by Werdecker is not compatible with the invention of Martin. Br. 12-15. This is because, according to Appellant, Werdecker's reflective layer has thicknesses one thousand times greater than the thickness Martin discloses 8 Appeal 2017-003992 Application 13/131,011 for the silicon/silicon dioxide alternating layer reflective coating. Br. 13. This argument is not persuasive because the ordinary artisan would have performed routine experimentation to determine the workable or optimal thicknesses of the slurry-based reflective layer for use on the reaction chamber of Martin and because Werdecker's disclosure that "[t]ypical layer thicknesses are in the range of 0.2 mm to 3 mm" (Werdecker if 52) provides evidence that the workable thicknesses would overlap the 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm range of claim 1. Moreover, the ordinary artisan would have adjusted the apparatus as necessary to accommodate the coating thickness. Appellant has not identified a reversible error in the Examiner's finding of a reason to use Werdecker's slurry-based silicon dioxide material in Martin's reflective layer to form a reflective layer of a thickness or average reflectivity within the range of claim 1. CONCLUSION In summary: 1, 7, 9, 10 Â§ 103(a) Martin, 1, 7, 9, 10 Werdecker 4, 11 Â§ 103(a) Martin, 4, 11 W erdecker, Maul 5, 6 Â§ 103(a) Martin, 5, 6 Werdecker, 0 liari 8 Â§ 103(a) Martin, 8 Werdecker, Leone, Kant Summar 1, 4-11 DECISION The Examiner's decision is affirmed. 9 Appeal 2017-003992 Application 13/131,011 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l). AFFIRMED 10