Ex Parte Boyle et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 14, 2009

10652677 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 14, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte INTEGRATED MATERIALS, INC.
____________________

Appeal 2009-003600
Application 10/652,677
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Decided: October 14, 2009
____________________

Before JAMESON LEE, RICHARD TORCZON, and SALLY GARDNER
LANE, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-003600
Application 10/652,677

2
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal by the real party in interest, Integrated
Materials, Inc. (“Integrated Materials”), under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a
final rejection of claims 1, 4-10, 13-15, 17-25, and 27-301. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

References Relied on by the Examiner
Hewitt 4,504,224 Mar. 12, 1985
Ohsawa 6,033,215 Mar. 7, 2000
Niemirowski 6,056,123 May 2, 2000
Wingo 6,171,400 B1 Jan. 9, 2001
Beyaert 6,361,313 B1 Mar. 26, 2002
Ballance 6,395,363 B1 May 28, 2002

The Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Niemirowski, Hewitt, and Beyaert.
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 7, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Niemirowski, Hewitt, Beyaert, and Ohsawa.
The Examiner rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Niemirowski, Hewitt, Beyaert, Ohsawa, and Ballance.

1 The Appeal Brief mailed September 16, 2006 (hereinafter App. Br.”) lists
claim 16 as being on appeal. (App. Br. 2:7.) Although the Final Office
Action mailed September 22, 2005 lists claim 16 as rejected on the Office
Action Summary form PTOL-326, none of the Office Action, the
Examiner’s Answer mailed December 4, 2006, or the Supplemental
Examiner’s Answer mailed March 26, 2007, includes claim 16 in any
statement of rejection or includes any discussion of a rejection applied to
that claim. We regard claim 16 as not rejected.
Appeal 2009-003600
Application 10/652,677

3
The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Niemirowski, Hewitt, Beyaert, Ohsawa, and Wingo.
The Examiner rejected claims 14, 15, 17-20, 22, 24, 25, and 27-29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Niemirowski, Hewitt,
Beyaert, and Ohsawa.
The Examiner rejected claims 21 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Niemirowski, Hewitt, Beyaert, Ohsawa, and Wingo.
The Examiner rejected claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Niemirowski, Hewitt, Beyaert, Ohsawa, and Ballance.

The Invention
The invention relates to silicon support towers for supporting silicon
wafers during thermal processing. (Spec. 1:10-11.)
Claim 1 is reproduced below (App. Br. 11 Claims App’x):
A wafer support tower for supporting wafers in parallel spaced
relationship along a vertical axis, comprising:

two silicon bases;

a plurality of silicon legs joined at opposite ends to said two
bases; and

a plurality of teeth having upper and lower surfaces both cut
into said legs and extending outwardly from axially extending
portions of said legs at an upwardly sloping angle of between 1º and
3º with respect to said vertical axis to support said wafers on upper
sides of distal ends thereof.
B. ISSUES
1. Has Integrated Materials shown that the Examiner erred in
determining that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been led by
Appeal 2009-003600
Application 10/652,677

4
the combined teachings of Niemirowski, Hewitt, and Beyaert to recognize
that a wafer support tower may have teeth with upper and lower surfaces
sloped at an angle?
2. Has Integrated Materials shown that the Examiner erred in
determining that taken together, Niemirowski, Hewitt, Beyaert, and Oshawa,
teach a supporting surface extending horizontally in the distal end of angled
wafer supporting teeth?
C. FINDINGS OF FACT
Niemirowski
1. Niemirowski discloses a tower made of silicon for supporting
semiconductor wafers. (Niemirowski 2:19-31.)
2. In Niemirowski, tower 30 includes a plurality of vertical rods or
legs 1 having slots 5 that receive and support semiconductor wafers 4. (Id.
at 3:6-11.)
3. Niemirowski illustrates the slots as being formed by teeth that
are horizontal and not upwardly inclined as required by Integrated Materials’
claims. (Niemirowski fig.4.)
Beyaert
4. Beyaert discloses a tower for supporting semiconductor wafers
during heat treatment processing. (Beyaert 1:4-12.)

Appeal 2009-003600
Application 10/652,677

5
5. Beyaert’s Figure 4B is reproduced below:

The figure above depicts a tower for supporting semiconductor
wafers.

6. In Beyaert, the tower includes a plurality of dividers 13' each
having a ramp portion such that a wafer 14 sits on a corner of the ramp
portion to minimize the contact surface S' between the ramp and wafer. (Id.
at 6:8-12.)
7. As disclosed in Beyaert, minimizing the contact surface of the
wafer and ramp portion desirably serves to “reduce the number of micro-
scratches and chipping particles, and the cold zones at the active face of the
water to improve deposited layer thickness uniformity.” (Id. at 6:58-62.)
8. Beyaert also discloses that the angle that the ramp makes with
the horizontal is described as either “about 3º” or “greater than zero and
preferably greater than 2º.” (Id. at 6:31-36.)
Appeal 2009-003600
Application 10/652,677

6
9. Beyaert further discloses that its wafer support tower may be
formed with dividers or teeth having an upper angled surface formed by
cutting slots in step-by-step fashion along support legs using a standard
grinding machine equipped with a tilted saw blade. (Beyaert 6:12-16.)
10. Alternatively, the upper angled surface of Beyaert may be
formed by first grinding “[n]ormal slots,” then, using a saw blade having a
special profile such as that shown in Figure 5, re-grinding the slots to form
the inclined upper surface of the teeth. (Id. at 6:17-30; fig.5.)
11. The purpose of each of Beyaert’s slot forming processes is to
produce teeth with angled surfaces that receive and support silicon wafers to
minimize contact between the wafers and teeth during heat treatment
processing. (Id. at 6:8-12.)
Integrated Materials’ Specification
12. Integrated Materials’ invention seeks to solve the specific
problems of minimizing thermal shadowing and minimizing stress and
resultant crystal slip arising from the support of a disc shaped semiconductor
wafer by addressing the general problem of reducing the size of the wafer
supports to make smaller contact portions between the supports and the
wafer. (Spec. 5:16-21; 7:23-24; 8:4-6; 13:20-24.)
Hewitt
13. Hewitt discloses a kiln that includes a ceramic ware support for
holding ceramic flatware in a spaced and stacked relationship during firing
of the kiln. (Hewitt 1:6-9.)
14. The ceramic ware support includes a plurality of upwardly
projecting pins 24 that form a rack that supports the peripheral portions of
Appeal 2009-003600
Application 10/652,677

7
the ceramic ware to “minimize the area of contact” between the ceramic
ware and support. (Id. at 2:44-56.)
Oshawa
15. Oshawa discloses a heat treatment tower for heat-treating
semiconductor wafers. (Oshawa 1:13-17.)
16. Oshawa’s Figure 7 is reproduced below:

The Figure above depicts a process of forming wafer supporting
grooves in the legs of a support tower.

17. As shown in Figure 7, horizontal grooves 42, 44 are formed
first in the support legs (unnumbered) of the tower. Then, by means of an
inclined cutter 55, the groove portions are inclined upwardly forming upper
and lower inclined surfaces and a horizontal or perpendicular support
surface. (Oshawa 6:51-56.)
18. Wafer 1 is supported on the support surface at an inner portion
of the wafer in the manner illustrated in Figure 7 resulting in less stress than
a wafer that is supported at its endmost portions. (Id. at 6:26-31.)
Appeal 2009-003600
Application 10/652,677

8
19. In Oshawa, the support of its wafers distributes stress along the
wafers thereby reducing the generation of slip in the wafers. (Id. at 2:57-61;
3:48-51; fig.11.)
D. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A prior art reference must be considered for everything it teaches by
way of technology and is not limited to the particular invention it is
describing and attempting to protect. EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc.,
755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
A reference is analogous art if it is either in the field of the applicant’s
endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
inventor was concerned. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987 (Fed. Cir. 2006); In
re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979).
The problem examined is not limited to the specific problem solved
by the invention but can be the general problem that confronted the inventor
before the invention was made. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.
E. ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 10, 14, and 24 are independent claims. Claims 4-9, 13, 15,
17-23, 25, and 27-30 are ultimately dependent on one of those independent
claims. Each of claims 1, 10, 14, and 24 are directed to a wafer or substrate
supporting tower. The primary dispute centers on a limitation in each of
those claims directed to legs of the tower having a plurality of upwardly
sloping teeth for supporting the wafers or substrates.
The Examiner rejected all of the claims on appeal, at least in part,
over the combined teachings of Niemirowski, Hewitt, and Beyaert. The
Examiner determined that Niemirowski discloses a wafer support tower
Appeal 2009-003600
Application 10/652,677

9
having legs but with teeth formed in the legs that are not upwardly sloping.
To remedy that deficiency, the Examiner turned to the combined teachings
of Hewitt and Beyaert. In contesting the Examiner’s rejections, Integrated
Materials focuses its arguments on Hewitt. Integrated Materials contends
that that reference is non-analogous art and thus not available as prior art in
rejecting its claims. Integrated Materials further contends that it is not
obvious to combine the teachings of Hewitt with either Niemirowski or
Beyaert. Integrated Materials also separately argues claims 4, 7, 13, 14, 15,
17-25, and 27-30 based on an additional limitation required by those claims.
Although Integrated Materials argues that Hewitt is non-analogous
art, no such argument is advanced for Beyaert. Indeed, Integrated Materials
submits that all of the other references cited by the Examiner, including
Beyaert, are in the same “field of semiconductor processing” as the “present
invention.” (App. Br. 4:23-24.) We focus first on the teachings of Beyaert.
The teachings of Beyaert
Beyaert discloses a tower for supporting semiconductor wafers during
heat treatment processing. (Beyaert 1:4-12.)

Appeal 2009-003600
Application 10/652,677

10
Beyaert’s Figure 4B is reproduced below:

The figure above depicts a tower for supporting semiconductor
wafers.

In Beyaert, the tower includes a plurality of dividers 13' each having a
ramp portion such that a wafer 14 sits on a corner of the ramp portion to
minimize the contact surface S' between the ramp and wafer. (Id. at 6:8-12.)
As disclosed in Beyaert, minimizing the contact surface of the wafer and
ramp portion desirably serves to “reduce the number of micro-scratches and
chipping particles, and the cold zones at the active face of the wafer to
improve deposited layer thickness uniformity.” (Id. at 6:58-62.) Beyaert
also discloses that the angle that the ramp makes with the horizontal is
described as either “about 3º” or “greater than zero and preferably greater
than 2º.” (Id. at 6:31-36.)
The Examiner determined that Beyaert’s dividers 13' are teeth on the
legs of a support tower that are sloped upwardly at an angle of either
Appeal 2009-003600
Application 10/652,677

11
“between 1º and 3º” as required by claims 1 and 10, and an angle of no
“more than 3º” as required by claims 14 and 24. (Ans. 4:7-9; 7:5-7.) The
Examiner reasoned that in view of the teachings of Beyaert one with
ordinary skill in the art would have angled the teeth of a wafer support
tower, such as in Niemirowski, to minimize the contact surface between the
teeth and a supported wafer. (Ans. 4:9-13.)
Integrated Materials does not dispute or otherwise address the
reasoning set forth by the Examiner. Rather, in attacking the teachings of
Beyaert, Integrated Materials argues that “Beyaert’s teeth are inclined only
on one side,” i.e., the upper side or surface, and thus do not also teach an
inclined or angled lower surface as required by its claims. (App. Br. 8:1-6.)
Integrated Materials’ specification does not describe that the angled
lower surface of its teeth has any interaction with a semiconductor wafer or
provides any benefit during a heat treatment process. That is, the benefits
arising from Integrated Materials’ teeth are not associated with the lower
surfaces of the teeth, but rather are attributed to the smaller projecting
portion of the upper angled surfaces of the teeth that contact the wafer.
(Spec. 5:16-18; 13:20-21.) Evidently, that the lower surfaces of its teeth are
angled at all is simply a matter of expediency resulting from the cutting
process that forms the upper angled surfaces of the teeth.
Beyaert discloses that its wafer support tower may be formed with
dividers or teeth having an upper angled surface formed by cutting slots in
step-by-step fashion along support legs using a standard grinding machine
equipped with a tilted saw blade. (Beyaert 6:12-16.) Alternatively, the
upper angled surface may be formed by first grinding “[n]ormal slots,” then,
using a saw blade having a special profile, re-grinding the slots to form the
Appeal 2009-003600
Application 10/652,677

12
inclined upper surface of the teeth. (Id. at 6:17-30.) The purpose of each
process is to produce teeth with angled surfaces that receive and support
silicon wafers to minimize contact between the wafers and teeth during heat
treatment processing. (Id. at 6:8-12.)
A prior art reference must be considered for everything it teaches by
way of technology and is not limited to the particular invention it is
describing and attempting to protect. EWP Corp., 755 F.2d at 907.
Furthermore, the teachings of a reference are evaluated from the standpoint
of a person of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
421 (2007).
In this case, Beyaert teaches that the horizontal upper surfaces of
wafer supporting teeth may be cut using a saw blade to produce an angled
surface that contacts a wafer. The shape of the lower non-contacting surface
of each tooth are illustrated as also being horizontal (Beyaert fig.4B) and are
not described as having, or being limited to, any particular appearance. It
would have been evident to a person of ordinary skill and creativity in the art
that Beyaert’s teaching of cutting a horizontal upper surface of a support
tooth at an angle could also be implemented on the horizontal lower surface
of the tooth.
Applying the teachings of Beyaert to a semiconductor support tower,
such as in Niemirowski, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized as obvious that the upper and lower surfaces of the wafer
supporting teeth in the legs of a tower may be angled by cutting those
surfaces using a tilted saw blade, as taught in Beyaert. We reject Integrated
Appeal 2009-003600
Application 10/652,677

13
Materials’ argument that the prior art fails to teach teeth having angled upper
and lower surfaces as required by the claims.
Hewitt’s status as analogous art
The Examiner cited Hewitt as also teaching angled support teeth for a
tower. Integrated Materials contends that Hewitt is non-analogous art and
thus is not available as prior art in rejecting its claims. As set forth above,
the teachings of Beyaert alone account for the requirement of sloping teeth.
Thus, the additional teachings of Hewitt are unnecessary in rejecting
Integrated Materials’ claims.
In any event, we also reject Integrated Materials’ argument that
Hewitt is non-analogous art. A reference is analogous art if it is either in the
field of the applicant’s endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to the particular
problem with which the inventor was concerned. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at
987; In re Wood, 599 F.2d at 1036.
Integrated Materials argues that Hewitt’s field of endeavor is in “the
field of pottery” which is not combinable with art in the “field of
semiconductor processing” of its invention. (App. Br. 4:23-24.) Integrated
Materials also concludes that “the field of pottery is not pertinent to the
problem the inventor is trying [sic] solve, which is fabricating long support
fingers in a material (silicon) that is difficult to machine.” (App. Br. 5:3-7.)
More specifically, Integrated Materials characterizes the problem its
inventors sought to solve as being “two fold, reduce thermal shadowing and
reduce slip in the wafer.” (Reply Br. 2:16-17 (filed January 31, 2007).)
We focus on the second prong of the analogous arts test, i.e., whether
Hewitt is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was
concerned. Here, the specific problems that Integrated Materials’ invention
Appeal 2009-003600
Application 10/652,677

14
seeks to solve are that of minimizing thermal shadowing (Spec. 5:16-17;
7:23-24; 13:20-24) and minimizing stress and resultant crystal slip arising
from the support of a disc shaped semiconductor wafer (Spec. 5:19-21; 8:4-
6.) However, in ascertaining whether a prior art reference is reasonably
pertinent to the problem faced by an inventor, the problem examined is not
limited to the specific problem solved by the invention but can be the
general problem that confronted the inventor before the invention was made.
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.
In this case, as explained in Integrated Materials’ specification, the
problems of minimizing thermal shadowing and minimizing stress were
addressed by confronting the general problem of reducing the size of the
wafer supports of a tower to make the contact portions between the tower
and the wafer smaller. In particular, the specification states each of the
following:
The legs may have a larger back portion and a smaller
projecting portion for supporting the wafers, thus minimizing
thermal shadowing.
(Spec. 5:16-17.)
---
The projecting portion advantageously supports the wafer at
between 69% and 72% of the wafer radius to minimize stress
on the wafer.
(Spec. 5:19-21.)
---
Again, the small areas of the supporting portion 34 and the
surrounding structure reduce thermal shadowing.
(Spec. 7:23-24.)
---
Furthermore, thermal shadowing is reduced since, for the
described towers, the wafer is supported on a [sic] narrow tooth
ends . . . .
(Spec. 13:20-21.)
Appeal 2009-003600
Application 10/652,677

15

All of those above-quoted portions refer to advantages arising from
smaller supporting portions that reduce the contact area between a tower and
a wafer. Hewitt is properly considered analogous art if it is reasonably
pertinent to the general problem of reducing the contact between a
supporting tower and a supported wafer.
Hewitt discloses a kiln that includes a ceramic ware support for
holding ceramic flatware in a spaced and stacked relationship during firing
of the kiln. (Hewitt 1:6-9.) The ceramic ware support includes a plurality of
upwardly projecting pins 24 that form a rack that supports the peripheral
portions of the ceramic ware to “minimize the area of contact” between the
ceramic ware and support. (Id. at 2:44-56.) Thus, Hewitt discloses a
structure for supporting flat articles of ceramic during a firing or heating
process that reduces the contact between the supporting structure and the
ceramic article. Simply because the structure in Hewitt supports articles
made of ceramic rather than semiconductor wafers does not require that
Hewitt’s teachings be discarded. Hewitt’s teaching of supporting a flat
ceramic article during a heating process with minimal contact between the
article and support is reasonably pertinent to the general problem addressed
by Integrated Materials’ invention in reducing contact between a wafer and
support tower during a heating process. We reject Integrated Materials’
argument that Hewitt is non-analogous art.
Claims 4, 7, 13-15, 17-25, and 27-30
Claims 4, 7, 13-15, 17-25, and 27-30 were rejected, at least in part
over Niemirowski, Hewitt, Beyaert, and Oshawa. Each of claims 4, 13, 14,
and 24 includes a limitation directed to a horizontal support surface located
Appeal 2009-003600
Application 10/652,677

16
at a distal end of the angled teeth. Claims 7, 15, 17-23, 25, and 27-30 are
dependent, either directly or indirectly, on one of claims 4, 13, 14, and 24.
In accounting for the horizontal support surface requirement of claims
4, 13, 14, and 24, the Examiner pointed to Oshawa’s Figure 7 as teaching
such a support surface. (Ans. 5:1-2; 7:14.) The Examiner reasoned that (Id.
at 5:2-6; 7:14-18):
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made, to have formed
the teeth of the support tower of Niemirowski et
al./Hewitt/Beyaert et al. with support surfaces extending
perpendicularly to the vertical axis, in light of the teachings of
Ohsawa, in order to securely seat the wafers.

Integrated Materials contends that (App. Br. 8:21-9:4):
[T]he only reason Hewitt provides for the inclination of his pins
is to provide a point contact support of the pottery ware being
fired and supported on the tip of the triangular pins and to
minimize visible pits in the glazing. Beyaert teaches the
advantage of a line contact. Oppositely, Niemirowski teaches a
completely flat upper surface and Oshawa teaches the
advantages of a flat extended support surface but both
Niemirowski and Ohsawa lack the inclined upper and lower
surfaces. The Examiner needs to pick which teaching he is
using and adapt the teachings as a whole instead of selectively
combining only parts of disparate teachings. The inclined
surfaces as they exist in Hewitt and Beyaert are designed to
provide either point or line contact, not the perpendicularly
extending support surfaces of the present claims.

Evidently, according to Integrated Materials, none of the applied prior
art teaches teeth having inclined upper and lower surfaces with a horizontal
support surfaces located at the ends of the inclined upper surfaces as
claimed.
Appeal 2009-003600
Application 10/652,677

17
Integrated Materials’ argument is not persuasive. Oshawa discloses a
heat treatment tower for heat-treating semiconductor wafers. (Oshawa 1:13-
17.)
Oshawa’s Figure 7 is reproduced below:

The Figure above depicts a process of forming wafer supporting
grooves in the legs of a support tower.

As shown in Figure 7, horizontal grooves 42, 44 are formed first in
the support legs (unnumbered) of the tower. Then, by means of an inclined
cutter 55, the groove portions are inclined upwardly forming upper and
lower inclined surfaces and a horizontal support surface. (Oshawa 6:51-56.)
Wafer 1, which is supported on the support surface at an inner portion of the
wafer in the manner illustrated in Figure 7, has less stress than a wafer that is
supported at its endmost portions. (Id. at 6:26-31.) Furthermore, that
configuration distributes stress along the wafer thereby reducing the
generation of slip in the wafer. (Id. at 2:57-61; 3:48-51; Fig. 11.)
Thus, contrary to Integrated Materials’ assertions, Oshawa teaches
that a semiconductor support tower is desirably formed having supporting
teeth with inclined upper and lower surfaces and a horizontal supporting
Appeal 2009-003600
Application 10/652,677

18
portion for a wafer. In light of those teachings, a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have readily recognized that a semiconductor wafer supporting
tower, such as that taught by the combination of Niemirowski, Hewitt, and
Beyaert, would have included the wafer supporting configuration taught in
Oshawa to achieve the above-noted benefits of reduced stress and slip in the
supported wafers.
For all the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
each of claims 1, 4-10, 13-15, 17-25, and 27-30.
F. CONCLUSION
1. Integrated Materials has not shown that the Examiner erred in
determining that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been led by
the combined teachings of Niemirowski, Hewitt, and Beyaert to recognize
that a wafer support tower may have teeth with upper and lower surfaces
sloped at an angle.
2. Integrated Materials has not shown that the Examiner erred in
determining that taken together, Niemirowski, Hewitt, and Beyaert, and
Oshawa, teach a supporting surface extending horizontally in the distal end
of angled wafer supporting teeth.
G. ORDER
The rejection of claims 1 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Niemirowski, Hewitt, and Beyaert is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 4, 7, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Niemirowski, Hewitt, Beyaert, and Ohsawa is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Niemirowski, Hewitt, Beyaert, Ohsawa, and Balance is affirmed.
Appeal 2009-003600
Application 10/652,677

19
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Niemirowski, Hewitt, Beyaert, Ohsawa, and Wingo is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 14, 15, 17-20, 22, 24, 25, and 27-29 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Niemirowski, Hewitt, Beyaert, and
Ohsawa is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 21 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Niemirowski, Hewitt, Beyaert, Ohsawa, and Wingo is
affirmed.
The rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Niemirowski, Hewitt, Beyaert, Ohsawa, and Balance is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

KMF

LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES GUENZER
P O BOX 60729
Palo Alto, CA 94306