Ex Parte Wan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 27, 2017

11413425 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/413,425 04/28/2006 Yuepeng Wan GT015-US 9451
24222 7590 01/31/2017
Maine rVmnta Rr RarHin
EXAMINER
547 Amherst Street CHEN, KEATH T
3rd Floor
Nashua, NH 03063 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2017 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):
patents @ mcr-ip.com
dwitmer@mcr-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUEPENG WAN,
SANTHANA RAGHAVAN PARTHASARATHY,
CARL CHARTIER, ADRIAN SERVINI, and
CHANDRA P. KHATTAK
Appeal 2014-008363
Application 11/413,425
Technology Center 1700
Before CHUNG K. PAK, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and JULIA HEANEY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
1 Our decision refers to the Specification (Spec.) filed April 28, 2006,
Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed May 2, 2014, the Examiner’s
Answer (Ans.) mailed June 4, 2014, and Appellants’ Reply Brief (Reply Br.)
filed August 1, 2014.
Appeal 2014-008363
Application 11/413,425
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants2 appeal from the
Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 32 and 51—69. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to chemical vapor deposition (CVD) of silicon
using shaped silicon filaments with larger starting surface areas for
deposition than solid slim rods. Spec. 11. Appellants disclose the
production of polysilicon via deposition in a CVD reactor, referred to as the
Siemens method, wherein the typical prior art reactor includes a complex
array of subsystems. Id. at | 8. These subsystems include external heaters
for raising the temperature of high purity slim rod filaments to
approximately 400°C in order to reduce their electrical resistivity or
impedance to current flow, as well as a multi-tap electrical power supply for
providing very high voltage and low current for early phase rod heating and
relatively lower voltage for the later phase when the rod temperature reaches
about 800°C and resistivity has decreased. Id. Switching gear is needed for
switching between these two voltage settings. Id. at 19. Appellants further
disclose that the typical starting size of the silicon slim rods is about 7 mm
with a round or square cross section, resulting in very low deposition at the
initial stage. Id. at 110.
In order to increase throughput of conventional CVD reactors,
Appellants incorporate shaped silicon filaments, such as tubes, ribbons, or
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is GTAT Corporation.
Appeal Br. 3.
2
Appeal 2014-008363
Application 11/413,425
other large surface area shapes of similar electrical properties, instead of
typical slim rods, so that the initial surface area for silicon deposition is
increased. Id. at 113. According to Appellants, “[t]he required change to
the reactor design to use the alternative filament is so minor that it can be
retrofitted to current CVD reactors quickly and at very modest cost.” Id.
Appellants teach that “[b]y choosing the appropriate cross section area of the
new filaments, the high voltage needed for launching the filament heating
will be the same as that used for the slim rod filaments,” thereby allowing
use of the same power supplies. Id. at 114.
Independent claims 32 and 51, reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix to the Appeal Brief, are illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal. Limitations at issue are italicized.
32. A CVD reactor for bulk production of polysilicon comprising:
a base plate system configured with filament supports; an
enclosure attachable to said base plate system so as to form a
deposition chamber;
a power supply adjusted and configured for use with a solid rod
silicon filament having a solid rod surface area;
at least one high surface area silicon filament disposed within
said chamber on said filament supports, said high surface area silicon
filament having a surface area greater than the solid rod surface area,
while also being usable in the CVD reactor without adjusting,
reconfiguring, or replacing the power supply of the CVD reactor,
electrical feedthroughs in said base plate system, said electrical
feedthroughs being adapted for connection of the power supply to
both ends of said high surface area silicon filament;
a gas inlet in said base plate system connectible to a source of
silicon-containing gas; and
a gas outlet in said base plate system whereby gas may be
released from said chamber.
3
Appeal 2014-008363
Application 11/413,425
51. A high surface area silicon filament configured for bulk
deposition thereupon of polysilicon in a CVD reactor, the CVD
reactor including a power supply adjusted and configured for
deposition of polysilicon onto a solid, cylindrical, 7mm diameter
silicon slim rod, said slim rod having a specified slim rod length and a
specified slim rod surface area, wherein:
the filament has a filament length that is approximately equal to
the specified slim rod length; and
the high surface area silicon filament has a surface area greater
than the slim rod surface area, while also being usable in the CVD
reactor in place of the slim rod without adjusting, reconfiguring, or
replacing the power supply of the CVD reactor.
Independent claim 57 is similarly directed to a CVD reactor
configured for use with a solid, cylindrical, 7 mm slim silicon rod, but uses a
high surface area silicon filament “without adjusting, reconfiguring, or
replacing the power supply of the CVD reactor.” Independent claim 63 is
also directed to a CVD reactor having a power supply adjusted and
configured for use with a solid silicon rod, but using a high surface area
silicon filament “without adjusting, reconfiguring, or replacing the power
supply of the CVD reactor.”
THE REJECTIONS3
The Examiner maintains, and Appellants request our review of, the
following grounds of rejection:4
3 The Examiner has withdrawn a rejection of claims 57—59 as indefinite
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph (pre-AIA). Ans. 12.
4 We note the Examiner states that several references cited in Appellants’
Information Disclosure Statement filed April 23, 2014 each read into claim
32 and could be a primary reference instead of Griesshammer. Ans. 16. As
the Examiner has not presented any rejections based on these additional
references, we will not address them further, on the merits or otherwise.
4
Appeal 2014-008363
Application 11/413,425
A. Claims 32 and 51—69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph (pre-AIA), as failing to comply with the written description
requirement;
B. Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA) as
anticipated by Griesshammer;
C. Claims 32, 51, 52, 54, 56—58, 60, and 62 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Griesshammer in view of
Chandra;
D. Claims 53 and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Griesshammer and Chandra, further in view of
Muller;
E. Claims 55 and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Griesshammer and Chandra, further in view of
Reuschel;
F. Claims 63, 64, and 69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Griesshammer, Chandra, and Reuschel, further in
view of Chandra ’415; and
G. Claims 65—68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Griesshammer, Chandra, Reuschel, and Chandra
’415, further in view of Muller.
ANALYSIS
Rejection A: 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written description
The Examiner finds that the limitation, “said high surface area silicon
filament is useable in the CVD reactor without adjusting, reconfiguring, or
replacing the power supply of the CVD reactor,” is inconsistent with
Appellants’ disclosure and the Declaration of Jeffrey C. Gum (Gum Decl.)
under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 filed November 14, 2013. Ans. 2. In particular, the
Examiner finds Appellants’ disclose “that the current has to be adjusted
5
Appeal 2014-008363
Application 11/413,425
during deposition (2nd paragraph on page 3) and [retrofitting] without
adjusting will not be appropriate (last paragraph on page 30).” Id.
Appellants argue that the Examiner appears to be confusing the
requirements for initiating the CVD reaction with the requirements for
maintaining the reaction once initiated. Appeal Br. 13. Appellants urge
that, “if the reactor is switched to a different style of filament[,] it is
necessary to readjust and reconfigure the power supply to ensure that the
proper initial current and voltage for that new type of filament are applied.”
Id. at 14. Once initiated, Appellants contend that the applied current and
voltage are automatically adjusted by the power supply during reaction. Id.
at 13. However, Appellants argue that the invention here does not require
any readjustment or reconfiguration of the initial current and voltage as the
dimensions of the large surface area filament, e.g., diameter and thickness,
can be designed to ensure it uses the same initial current and voltage as the
conventional solid rod. Id. at 12, 13.
The Examiner responds that Appellants’ admission that the applied
current and voltage must be automatically adjusted during growth supports
the Examiner’s position that the CVD reactor is capable of being adjusted to
retrofit to a hollow rod. Ans. 11. Further, such automatic adjustment means
that retrofitting the CVD reactor with the large surface area filament requires
adjustment. Id. In addition, the Examiner finds there is no distinction
between manual and automatic adjustment in Appellants’ Specification. Id.
The Examiner also notes that the claims do not limit adjustment to only the
initial current and voltage. Id. at 12. Moreover, the Examiner finds that “the
action of ‘without adjusting the initial adjustment of the power supply’ is an
intended use of the same apparatus.” Id.
6
Appeal 2014-008363
Application 11/413,425
In rebuttal, Appellants assert that it is the specified properties of the
solid rod filament that imposes structural limitations on the power supply,
rather than the power supply imposing structural limitations on the filament.
Reply Br. 3^4. Thus, Appellants contend, once the properties of the solid
rod filament are defined, the structural limitations on the power supply are
defined. Id. at 4. In other words, Appellants argue, the current and voltage
are only adjusted (automatically) by the power supply during silicon
deposition, and no adjustment of the power supply takes place. Id. at 6—7.
Appellants urge that the Examiner fails to accord this feature of the
invention appropriate weight, having reversed the clear meaning of the
claim. Id. at 4. Appellants further urge that, whether or not the power
supply is capable of being adjusted is not at issue, such adjustment is not
needed and does not occur. Id. at 6. Finally, with regard to the Examiner’s
finding that the limitation in question is directed to an intended use of the
apparatus, Appellants state that the claims recite that the high surface area
filament is usable, not used, in the CVD reactor without adjusting,
reconfiguring, or replacing the power supply of the reactor, and that this
ability “is a structural requirement imposed on the filament.” Id. at 7.
“[The written description] inquiry is a factual one and must be
assessed on a case-by-case basis.” Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding, Inc.,
230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “In order to satisfy the written
description requirement, the disclosure as originally filed does not have to
provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue.” Id.
Nonetheless, the disclosure must convey with reasonable clarity to those
skilled in the art that the inventor was in possession of the invention. Id.,
7
Appeal 2014-008363
Application 11/413,425
(“Put another way, one skilled in the art, reading the original disclosure,
must immediately discern the limitation at issue in the claims.”).
Thus, the issue before us on appeal is whether Appellants have
identified reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that Appellants’ original
written description fails to demonstrate possession of the limitation that the
high surface area filament is usable in the CVD reactor whose power supply
has been adjusted and configured for use with a solid rod filament “without
adjusting, reconfiguring, or replacing the power supply of the CVD reactor.”
We answer this question in the affirmative and, therefore, will not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection.
As Appellants argue, the Examiner’s finding fails to appreciate that
the invention involves use of a high surface area filament that does not
require any changes to the power supply that has already been adjusted and
configured for use with a solid rod filament. Appellants disclose
[b]y selecting an appropriate wall thickness and cross section
area of the silicon filament sections, the electrical resistance
characteristics can by design approximate those of a slim rod
filament. This allows the power supply that was designed and
used for heating the silicon slim rods of the reactor of Fig. 1 to
be utilized for heating up the large surface area filaments of the
Fig. 2 reactor.
Spec. 130. Appellants further disclose, as an example, “if the starting
silicon tube OD is 50 mm, the appropriate thickness of such tubular
filaments will be about 1.8 mm or more in order to use the same
power supply as would be used for slim rod filaments of 7 mm
diameter.” Id. at 137. Additional disclosures support Appellants’
contention that, through the appropriate selection of the dimensions of
8
Appeal 2014-008363
Application 11/413,425
a high surface area filament, the CVD reactor may use the same
power supply designed for a slim rod filament of particular
dimensions. See, for example, id. at || 14, 31, 39. Thus, there is
written description support for the use of the same power supply
designed and configured for use with a solid slim rod to be used with
a particular high surface area filament.
As to the Examiner’s position that the limitation “without
adjusting” lacks written description support because Appellants
disclose that the power supply, during growth, automatically adjusts
the current and voltage, we disagree. As Appellants assert, the claims
recite that the power supply itself does not require adjustment when
the dimensions of the high surface area filament are properly selected.
Instead, as Appellants disclose, the automatic adjustment that occurs
is by, not to, the power supply.
Accordingly, we are satisfied that Appellants’ disclosure
demonstrates possession of the limitation, “without adjusting,
reconfiguring, or replacing the power supply of the CVD reactor.”
Therefore, we are persuaded the Examiner’s finding that this
limitation lacks adequate written description in Appellants’ original
disclosure is erroneous. As such, on this record, we will not sustain
the Examiner’s written description rejection.
Rejection B: 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) anticipation
The Examiner finds Griesshammer teaches a CVD reactor having all
of the limitations of claim 32 including a high surface area silicon filament
(hollow tube) “intrinsically having larger surface area than a solid rod of
9
Appeal 2014-008363
Application 11/413,425
smaller diameter.” Ans. 2. In addition, the Examiner finds Griesshammer’s
high surface area filament is usable in the CVD reactor without adjusting,
reconfiguring, or replacing the power supply. Id.
Appellants contend that Griesshammer fails to disclose that the power
supply is adjusted and configured for use with a specified solid rod silicon
filament, and that the high surface area filament is usable in place of the
solid rod filament with readjustment of the power supply. Appeal Br. 16. In
addition, Appellants state that “[wjhile the solid rod silicon filament is not
an element of claim 32, it is an important reference that defines structural
limitations of the high surface area filament and the reactor power supply.”
Id. Because Griesshammer fails to mention a solid rod filament, Appellants
urge that one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that
Griesshammer’s power supply must be specifically adjusted and configured
for use with the high surface area filament that is used in the reactor. Id. at
17.
In response, the Examiner finds that Griesshammer’s power supply “is
intrinsically capable of being used for a solid slim rod, just like [Appellants’]
discovery that a solid 7 mm slim rod reactor can be retrofitted with a hollow
tube.” Ans. 13. The Examiner notes that in Appellants’ apparatus claim 32,
it is the structure of the apparatus that matters. Id.
In rebuttal, Appellants argue that if the Examiner’s finding that
Griesshammer’s power supply is intrinsically capable of being used with
some type of slim rod, i.e., the power supply defines the slim rod, such
would be backward to the clear meaning of the claim. Reply Br. 8.
Appellants argue that the claim requires that the power supply be defined by
a particular solid slim rod, which then determines the dimensions of the high
10
Appeal 2014-008363
Application 11/413,425
surface area filament that can be used with that power supply with
readjusting, reconfiguring, or replacing it. Id. Appellants assert that while
expressed in functional language, these features are nonetheless structural
rather than method limitations. Id.
After review of the opposing positions articulated by Appellant and
the Examiner, the applied prior art, and Appellant’s claims and Specification
disclosures, we determine that the Appellant’s arguments are insufficient to
identify reversible error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection.
Griesshammer teaches the use of high surface area silicon filaments
of various shapes including hollow tubes, but fails to mention the use of
solid slim rod filaments. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds Griesshammer
intrinsically, i.e., inherently, is capable of using a solid slim rod filament
without readjusting, reconfiguring, or replacing the power supply. If true,
such a solid slim rod filament would meet the requirement discovered by
Appellants that the diameter of the solid slim rod filament defines the
dimensions of the high surface area filaments, and vice versa. This
discovery, as we understand it, is based on designing the resistivities of the
high surface area filament and a corresponding slim rod filament to be
approximately the same.
Initially, we note that claim 32 recites apparatus, rather than a process
of replacing solid rod silicon filament in a CVD reactor with a high surface
area filament without readjusting, reconfiguring, or replacing the power
supply. Indeed, claim 32, as drafted, requires a power supply capable of use
with any and all solid rod silicon filaments, though the solid rod filaments
are not a structural feature of the claimed CVD reactor. Therefore, claim 32
does not exclude a power supply capable of being used with those solid rod
11
Appeal 2014-008363
Application 11/413,425
silicon filaments that correspond to, i.e., have approximately the same
resistivity as, the high surface area filaments of Griesshammer. In other
words, the Examiner provides a rational basis supporting the finding that
Griesshammer teaches a CVD reactor having high surface area filaments and
a power supply capable of being used with a solid slim rod corresponding to
its high surface area filaments without readjustment, reconfiguration, or
replacement of the power supply.
It has long been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is,
not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909
F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990). An inventor of a structure (machine or
article of manufacture) is entitled to benefit from all of its uses, even those
not described, Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 (1875), and conversely,
patentability of the structure cannot turn on the use or function of the
structure. In reMichlin, 256 F.2d 317, 320 (CCPA 1958) (“It is well settled
that patentability of apparatus claims must depend upon structural
limitations and not upon statements of function.”). Therefore, courts have
devised a test: Structures such as machines and articles of manufacture must
be distinguished from the prior art on the basis of structure, and where there
is reason to believe that the structure of the prior art is inherently capable of
performing the claimed function, the burden shifts to the applicant to show
that the claimed function patentably distinguishes the claimed structure from
the prior art structure. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir.
1997); In re Hallman, 655 F.2d 212, 215 (CCPA 1981).
Thus, Appellants may be required to prove the prior art does not
possess the claimed functional characteristics when the Examiner provides a
sound basis for believing the functional limitations may, in fact, be an
12
Appeal 2014-008363
Application 11/413,425
inherent characteristic of the prior art. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213
(CCPA 1971). The Examiner may establish a sound basis for such a belief
by demonstrating the structural elements performing the functional
limitations in the claimed apparatus are the same as those disclosed in the
prior art. Id. Moreover, a sound basis does not turn on absolute certainty;
rather, a sound basis requires the Examiner “to make sufficient factual
findings, such that it can reasonably infer that the prior art product and that
of the patent at issue are the same.” Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Zimmer
Inc., 640 Fed. Appx. 951, 958 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “Such a burden-shifting
framework is fair because of ‘the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or
to obtain and compare prior art products.’” Id. We are not persuaded the
Examiner erred by finding Griesshammer anticipates claim 32, because the
Examiner provides a sound basis for believing the functional limitations are
an inherent characteristic of Griesshammer.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection.
Rejections C—G: 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Griesshammer in view of Chandra,
alone or further in view of Muller, Reuschel, and/or Chandra ’415
The Examiner finds Griesshammer teaches each of the claim
limitations except for the CVD reactor being configured for use with a solid,
cylindrical, 7 mm diameter silicon slim rod having a specified slim rod
length and surface area, electrical feedthroughs connecting to both ends of
the slim rod, wherein the high surface area silicon filament has a length
approximately equal to the slim rod length and at least four times greater
surface area than the slim rod surface area. Ans. 3—4. The Examiner finds
Chandra teaches the starting diameter for 1) a solid, cylindrical silicon slim
13
Appeal 2014-008363
Application 11/413,425
rod is 7 mm, 2) a single tube is 300 mm, and 3) two tubes is 300 mm and
150 mm. Id. at 4. The Examiner also finds Chandra teaches “CVD reactors
have already been scaled to a diameter much larger than the prior art in Fig.
1Id. The Examiner concludes, therefore, that it would have been obvious
to have scaled Griesshammer’s reactor in the range of those of Chandra, so
as to have the capability to process a 7 mm slim rod “for its suitability with
predictable results and routine engineering scale-up.” Id. Further, the
Examiner finds that given Chandra’s wide range of tube diameters, some
would have the same height and at least the four times greater surface area
than the slim rod. Id.
Appellants argue that, while Chandra teaches that the tubes can be
used in a Siemens reactor such as taught by Griesshammer, Chandra is silent
regarding the configuration of the power supply and, therefore, fails to teach
or suggest use of a high surface area filament in a Siemens reactor with a
power supply adjusted and configured for use with a solid rod silicon
filament without readjustment, reconfiguration, or replacement of the power
supply. Appeal Br. 18.
In response, the Examiner finds that because the power supply can be
adjusted, this “adjustable power supply is the hardware configuration from
the same Siemen CVD reactor of [Chandra] (col. 1, line 27) and Appellants’
(abstract).” Ans. 15. The Examiner also characterizes Appellants’argument
as asserting that Chandra fails to teach the method of retrofitting in an
apparatus claim. Id. Further, the Examiner determines that, given
Chandra’s “wide range of hollow tube diameters, [] one of these hollow
tube[s] would [] correspond to the power requirement of a solid 7 mm slim
rod.” Id.
14
Appeal 2014-008363
Application 11/413,425
In rebuttal, Appellants note that, whether or not the power supply is
adjustable, claim 32 requires that no adjustment is needed when
interchanging between a solid, slim rod and a high surface area filament.
Reply Br. 10. Appellants reiterate that such adjustment is of, rather than by,
the power supply. Id. As to the Examiner’s determination that, given
Chandra’s wide range of hollow tube diameters, one of these hollow tubes
would correspond to the power requirement of a solid 7 mm slim rod,
Appellants urge that it is both the diameter and wall thickness that “must be
carefully selected to fulfill the requirements of claim 32 and the other
independent claims.” Id. Moreover, Appellants contend that Chandra
makes no specific disclosure the dimensions of a high surface area filament
that allow its interchangeability with a solid slim rod without readjustment
of the power supply. Id. Appellants argue that while some embodiment of
Chandra might, by chance, satisfy the claimed requirement, Chandra lacks
any specificity of disclosure in this regard. Id.
The Examiner relies on Muller, Reuschel, and Chandra ’415 to
address additional features of the claims. With regard to each of these
additional references, Appellants merely argue that each of these references
fail to teach that a high surface area filament is usable with a power supply
configured for use with a solid rod silicon filament without adjustment or
reconfiguration of the power supply. Appeal Br. 19—21.
After review of the opposing positions articulated by Appellants and
the Examiner, the applied prior art, and Appellants’ claims and Specification
disclosures, we determine that Appellants’ arguments identify reversible
error in the Examiner’s rejection only as to those claims limited to a high
surface filament that corresponds to a solid, cylindrical 7mm diameter
15
Appeal 2014-008363
Application 11/413,425
silicon slim rod in terms of a power supply employed, but does not identify
reversible error as to those claims encompassing any high surface filaments
that correspond to any and all silicon film rods of undefined dimensions with
any and all power supplies applicable to such rods and filaments.
Initially, we note for the same reasons given above, we are satisfied
that Appellants have not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
inherency finding with regard to Griesshammer with regards to a power
supply configured to a solid rod filament of any dimension. We are likewise
satisfied that Appellants have not identified reversible error in the
Examiner’s reliance on Chandra to support the obviousness of selecting a
high surface area silicon filament in Griesshammer whose surface area is at
least four times greater than that of a solid rod filament.
Nonetheless, we note that where the claims are limited to a high
surface filament that corresponds to a specific 7mm diameter solid,
cylindrical silicon slim rod, the Examiner has failed to establish a sound
basis for believing that one of the high surface area filaments of
Griesshammer or Chandra has approximately the same resistivity as the
7mm diameter solid, cylindrical silicon slim rod such that a power supply
adjusted and configured for use with the 7 mm rod can be used with that
high surface area filament without readjustment, reconfiguration, or
replacement of the power supply. As Appellants argue, Chandra, like
Griesshammer, teaches use of hollow tubes but fails to disclose or suggest
any relationship between the dimensions of the hollow tubes and the
dimensions of solid, slim rods such that selection of the dimensions of the
hollow tube would permit its interchangeability with a 7 mm solid, slim rod
in a CVD reactor with the same power supply without readjustment,
16
Appeal 2014-008363
Application 11/413,425
reconfiguration, or replacement of the power supply. Thus, on this record,
the Examiner has not shown that either Griesshammer or Chandra or a
combination thereof would have suggested forming a high surface area
silicon filament or tube having a dimension that corresponds to a 7 mm
solid, cylindrical, silicon slim rod for the purpose of employing it in the
place of the 7 mm solid, cylindrical, silicon slim rod in a CVD reactor
without readjustment, reconfiguration, or replacement of the power supply
configured for the 7 mm solid, cylindrical, silicon slim rod. Accordingly,
we will sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection over Griesshammer
and Chandra with regard to claims 32 and 63—69, but will not sustain this
rejection with regard to claims 51—62.
CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and
in the Appeal and Reply Briefs,
A. the rejection of claims 32 and 51—69 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, for lack of an adequate written description is
reversed;
B. the rejection of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Griesshammer is affirmed', and
C. the rejections of claims 32 and 51—69 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Griesshammer in view of
Chandra, alone or further in view of Muller, Reuschel, and
Chandra ’415 are reversed as to claims 51—62 and affirmed
as to claims 32 and 63—69.
17
Appeal 2014-008363
Application 11/413,425
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 32 and 63—69 is
affirmed, whereas the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 51—62 is
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
18