Ex Parte Torimi et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 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. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. (March 30,
2017). Appellants 1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 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. § 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. § 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.
§ 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