Ex Parte Torimi et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 13, 2019

13996077 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/996,077 06/20/2013 96313 7590 MIYAZAKI & METS UGI 1800 Alexander Bell Drive Suite 200 Reston, VA 20191 03/15/2019 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Satoshi Torimi 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. 96313.38 5318 EXAMINER BRATLAND JR, KENNETH A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1714 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/15/2019 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): uspto@kbiplaw.com jkeating@kbiplaw.com sfunk@kbiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SATOSHI TORIMI, SATORU NOGAMI, and TSUYOSHI MATSUMOTO Appeal2018-002064 Application 13/996,077 Technology Center 1700 Before MARK NAGUMO, GEORGE C. BEST, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. BEST, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Examiner finally rejected claims 1-3, 5, and 9-12 of Application 13/996,077 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. (March 30, 2017). Appellants 1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse. 1 Toyo Tanso Co. is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2018-002064 Application 13/996,077 BACKGROUND The '077 Application describes a seed material for liquid phase epitaxial growth of monocrystalline silicon carbide. Spec. ,r 1. Silicon carbide is considered to have superior properties to conventional semiconductor materials such as silicon and gallium arsenide. Id. ,r 2. One potential lower-cost way to grow epitaxial silicon carbide is using metastable solvent epitaxy. Id. ,r,r 5-9. In this process, the quality of the seed material affects the quality of the silicon carbide produced. Id. ,r,r 11- 13. Claim 1 is representative of the '077 Application's claims and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix: 1. A seed material for liquid phase epitaxial growth of a monocrystalline silicon carbide, the seed material being used in a method for liquid phase epitaxial growth of a monocrystalline silicon carbide and including a surface layer containing a polycrystalline silicon carbide with a 3C crystal polymorph, wherein upon X-ray diffraction of the surface layer, a first-order diffraction peak corresponding to a (111) crystal plane is observed as a diffraction peak corresponding to the polycrystalline silicon carbide with a 3C crystal polymorph but no other first-order diffraction peak having a diffraction intensity of 10% or more of the diffraction intensity of the first- order diffraction peak corresponding to the (111) crystal plane is observed; an LO peak derived from a polycrystalline silicon carbide with a 3C crystal polymorph is observed upon Raman spectroscopic analysis of the surface layer with an excitation wavelength of 532 nm and the absolute amount of shift of the LO peak from 972 cm-1 is 4 cm-1 or more; the surface layer is substantially made of the polycrystalline silicon carbide with a 3C crystal polymorph; and 2 Appeal2018-002064 Application 13/996,077 a full width at half-maximum of the LO peak is 15 cm-1 or less. Appeal Br. 13 ( emphasis added). REJECTIONS On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections: 1. Claims 1-3, 5, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over the combination of George2 and Rohmfeld. 3 Final Act. 2. 2. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over the combination of George, Rohmfeld, and Asaoka. 4 Final Act. 7. DISCUSSION Appellants only present substantive arguments for reversal of the rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 3-11. Claims 2, 3, 5, and 9-12 are said to be patentable based upon the alleged patentability of claim 1. Id. at 11. We, therefore, select claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner rejected claim 1 as unpatentable over the combination of George and Rohmfeld. Final Act. 2. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that George describes or suggests each limitation of the claim except 2 V.C. George et al., Bias enhanced deposition of highly oriented fJ-SiC thin films using low-pressure hot filament chemical vapor deposition technique, 419 Thin Solid Films 114--17 (2002). 3 S. Rohmfeld et al., Influence of Stacking Disorder on the Raman Spectrum of 3C-SiC, 215 Phys. Stat. Sol. (b) 115-119 (1999). 4 US 2006/0249073 Al, published November 9, 2006. 3 Appeal2018-002064 Application 13/996,077 for the recited full width at half maximum (FWHM) value for the longitudinal optical phonon (LO) peak in the Raman spectrum of the seed material. Final Act. 2--4; see also Spec. ,r 31 ( defining LO in context of '077 Application). The Examiner further found that Rohmfeld describes a laser annealing process which reduced the FWHM of a Raman peak from 13 cm-1 to 6 cm-1. Final Act. 4 ( citing Rohmfeld Figure 1, 115-17). We reverse. The Examiner states that the Raman peak due to the longitudinal optical phonon has a FWHM of 16-19 cm-1. Answer 4. This finding is erroneous. As Appellants persuasively argue, the FWHM of the relevant Raman peak is approximately 30 to 40 cm-1. Reply Br. 4--5. 5 Our examination of George's Figure 3 convinces us that this is more than likely not the case. The only support in the record for any value being within a range of 16- 19 cm-1 is Appellants' description of the approximate width of the LO peak in the Raman spectrum at the maximum value of the peak. See Amend. 8 (October 7, 2016). 6 Moreover, the rejection is based upon an unsupported assumption. Rohmfeld shows that laser annealing of silicon carbide crystals reduces the FWHM of a Raman peak by 7 cm-1. Rohmfeld Figure 1. This peak, 5 We note that the documents attached to Appellants' October 7, 2016 Amendment are not evidence despite Appellants' attorney calling them "Evidence I" and "Evidence II." These documents were simply attached to Appellants' Amendment and were not part of any declaration submitted to the Office. Thus, these unsworn statements are merely attorney argument, not evidence. 6 The Examiner erroneously interpreted Appellants' argument on this point from the time it was first made. See Non-Final Office Action 9 (November 14, 2016). 4 Appeal2018-002064 Application 13/996,077 however, has a maximum value near 800 cm-1, and is due to a transverse optical phonon. See George 115 ("The Raman spectrum of the sample ... shows two distinct peeks at -790 cm-1 and 970 cm-1. These peeks correspond, respectively, to the transverse and longitudinal optical phonons of cubic silicon carbide, thereby confirming its presence." (footnote omitted)). The Examiner has not provided any evidence that laser annealing would have been expected to have a similar effect (in magnitude or direction) on the FWHM of the LO peak in the Raman spectrum. Thus, the rejection is based upon unsupported speculation and erroneous factual determinations. We, therefore, are constrained to reverse. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, and 9-12 of the '077 Application. REVERSED 5