Ex Parte Bondokov et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 21, 2012

11605192 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 21, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/605,192 11/28/2006 Robert T. Bondokov CIS-007/7303622001 4510
23517 7590 06/21/2012
BINGHAMMCCUTCHEN LLP
2020 K Street, N.W.
Intellectual Property Department
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
EXAMINER
SONG, MATTHEW J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1714
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROBERT T. BONDOKOV, KENNETH MORGAN,
GLEN A. SLACK, and LEO J. SCHOWALTER
__________

Appeal 2011-001047
Application 11/605,192
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, TERRY J. OWENS, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-001047
Application 11/605,192

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1-4, 6, 8-15, 21-23, and 39. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appellants’ invention is said to be directed to a method of growing a
single crystal AlN including providing in a crystal growth enclosure a vapor
comprising Al and N2, and depositing the vapor as a single-crystalline AlN
having a microvoid density less than approximately 104 cm-3 (Spec. 3:28-
31).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of growing single-crystal AIN, the method
comprising the steps of:
a. providing in a crystal growth enclosure a vapor
comprising Al and N2; and
b. depositing the vapor as single-crystalline AIN having a
micro void density less than approximately 104 cm-3 while
pushing the crystal growth enclosure at a rate less than an
intrinsic growth rate of the AIN.
The Examiner maintains1 and Appellants appeal the following
rejections:
1. Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schowalter ‘003
(US 2003/0168003 A1 published Sept. 11, 2003).

1 The Examiner withdrew the 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b)/103(a) rejections over
Hunter (US 6,296,956) (Ans. 3).
Appeal 2011-001047
Application 11/605,192

3
2. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Schowalter ‘003 in view of Vodakov (US 2002/0170490 A1
Nov. 21, 2002).
3. Claims 15 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schowalter ‘003 in view of Tanaka (US 5,909,036
issued June 1, 1999).
4. Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schowalter ‘003 in view of Schowalter ‘690
(US 2004/0033690 A1 published Feb. 19, 2004).

ISSUE
Did the Examiner reversibly err in determining that Schowalter
‘003would have suggested the subject matter of method claim 1 which
includes “pushing the crystal growth enclosure at a rate less than an intrinsic
growth rate of the AlN”? We decide this issue in the affirmative.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSES
The Examiner finds that Schowalter ‘003 teaches a push rate of from
0.6 to 0.9 mm/hr, which overlaps Appellants’ claimed range of “less than the
intrinsic growth rate” because Appellants disclose that the maximum growth
rate for the AlN crystal is 2 mm/hr (Ans. 4, 9-10). The Examiner contends
that Schowalter ‘003 teaches that the separation between the source material
and the growing crystal surface will remain “about constant during most of
the growth” which would have suggested nominal differences between the
push rate and the growth rate as the word “about” would include push rates
less than the growth rate (id.).
Appeal 2011-001047
Application 11/605,192

4
Appellants argue that their disclosed maximum growth rate of
2 mm/hr is tied to the reaction conditions in the reaction chamber and is not
a universal growth rate independent of reaction conditions (e.g., source and
crystal growth temperatures) as apparently found by the Examiner (Reply
Br. 4; Schowalter Declaration para. 7, filed April 17, 2009 and attached to
the Evidence App’x). Appellants contend that Schowalter ‘003 teaches at
paragraph [0067] that the growth rate is synonymous with the push rate (i.e,
movement of the crucible) such that the push rate is equal to the growth rate,
not less than the growth rate as required by claim 1 (App. Br. 6-7).
Having fully considered the Examiner’s findings and Appellants’
argument and evidence, we find that the preponderance of the evidence
favors Appellants’ argument of nonobviousness. The Examiner solely
points to Appellants’ Specification as establishing that the maximum growth
rate for AlN is 2 mm/hr (Ans. 4 and 9). The Specification further discloses
that the growth rate is affected by, for example, the source temperature,
crystal growth temperature, and the crystallographic orientation of the
growing crystal (Spec. 8: 28-29 and 14:7-9).
However, the Examiner has not established that Schowalter ‘003’s
conditions such as the source and crystal growth temperatures or
crystallographic orientation of the growing crystal are the same as
Appellants’ disclosed conditions so that a reasonable inference may be
drawn that the maximum growth rate of AlN of Schowalter ‘003 is the same
as Appellants’ growth rate (Ans. 4-5). Accordingly, the Examiner’s finding
that Schowalter ‘003 teaches a range of push rates (0.6 to 0.9 mm/hr) that
are less than Appellants’ disclosed maximum growth rate is speculative and
fails to address specifically the teachings of Schowalter ‘003.
Appeal 2011-001047
Application 11/605,192

5
We further agree with Appellants that Schowalter ‘003 teaches that
the growth rate is equal to the push rate (i.e, movement of the crucible
through the temperature gradient) (Schowalter ‘003, paras. [0066] and
[0067]). We note that in paragraph 0067 Schowalter ‘003 states that “axial
pushing/growth rates of 0.5 to 3 mm/h” may be achieved, which we find to
teach that the axial pushing (i.e., push rate) and growth rate are one and the
same, or equal. Accordingly, we agree that the Examiner has not established
that Schowalter ‘003 teaches a push rate less than the intrinsic growth rate.
On this record, we reverse all of the Examiner’s § 103 rejections.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.

ORDER
REVERSED

bar