Ex Parte Kuibira et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 14, 2010

10478278 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 14, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte AKIRA KUIBIRA, MASUHIRO NATSUHARA, and
HIROHIKO NAKATA
____________

Appeal 2009-004846
Application 10/478,278
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: April 14, 2010
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHUNG K. PAK, and
CHARLES F. WARREN, Administrative Patent Judges.

PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1 through 5 and 7 through 9. Claim 6, the
other pending claim in the above-identified application, stands objected as
being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but was indicated to be
allowable if rewritten in independent form, including all of the limitations of
the rejected base claim and any intervening claims. See page 7 of the final
Appeal 2009-004846
Application 10/478,278

office action dated November 27, 2007 and page 2 of the Appeal Brief
(“App Br.”) filed June 19, 2008. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6
and 134.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal is directed to “an apparatus for
manufacturing a semiconductor or liquid crystal” (Spec. 1, para. 0001).
Details of the appealed subject matter are recited in the broadest claim on
appeal, independent claim 1, reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the
Appeal Brief as shown below:
1. An apparatus for manufacturing a semiconductor or liquid
crystal, having a ceramic holder which is provided inside a reaction chamber
to which is supplied a reactive gas, and which holds and heats a material to
be treated on a surface thereof, said apparatus comprising: a cylindrical
support member one end of which supports the ceramic holder at a portion
other than the surface which holds the material to be treated and the other
end of which is fixed to a portion of the reaction chamber; a supply tube
which opens in the space within the cylindrical support member and supplies
an inert gas to the space within the cylindrical support member; an
evacuation tube which opens in the space within the cylindrical support
member, and an evacuation pump which evacuates the inert gas through the
evacuation tube from the space within the cylindrical support member; and a
resistive heating element which is embedded in the ceramic holder, said
resistive heating element being isolated from an atmosphere within the
cylindrical support member.

As evidence of unpatentability of the claimed subject matter, the
Examiner relies on the following prior art references at pages 2 and 3 of the
Answer (“Ans.”) dated August 29, 2008:
Murakami 5,462,603 Oct. 31, 1995
Komino 5,660,740 Aug. 26, 1997
Yoshiyuki JP 03034540 Feb. 14, 1991

2
Appeal 2009-004846
Application 10/478,278

Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Ed., p. 2082 (1993) for
the definition “embedded”.

www. wikipedia.com/ceramic for the definition “ceramic” said to be
retrieved on Aug. 27, 2008.

Appellants refer to the following evidence:
McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, 5th Ed. p.
672 (1994) for the definition of the term “embedded”.

Appellants request review of the following grounds of rejection set
forth in the Answer:
1) Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by the disclosure of Murakami;
2) Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
disclosure of Murakami;
3) Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Murakami and Yoshiyuki; and
4) Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Murakami and Komino. (See App. Br. 4.)
The above §§ 102(b) and 103(a) rejections are based on the
Examiner’s finding that Murakami teaches the limitations “a resistive
heating element which is embedded in the ceramic holder” and “said
resistive heating element being isolated from an atmosphere within the
cylindrical support member” recited in claim 1 (Ans. 3-8).
Appellants traverse the Examiner’s §§ 102(b) and 103(a) rejections,
arguing, inter alia, that Murakami does not teach the limitations “a resistive
heating element which is embedded in the ceramic holder” and “said
resistive heating element being isolated from an atmosphere within the
3
Appeal 2009-004846
Application 10/478,278

cylindrical support member” recited in claim 1 contrary to the Examiner’s
positions at pages 7 and 8 of the Answer (App. Br. 7-10).
ISSUE AND CONCLUSION
The dispositive question is: Has the Examiner shown that Murakami
teaches or describes the limitations “a resistive heating element which is
embedded in the ceramic holder” and “said resistive heating element being
isolated from an atmosphere within the cylindrical support member” recited
in claim 1? On this record, we answer this question in the negative.
RELEVANT FACTUAL FINDINGS
The following relevant factual findings are supported by at least a
preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427
(Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings
before the Office):
1. Murakami describes a semiconductor processing apparatus for
processing a semiconductor wafer or an LCD substrate, which comprises a
process chamber 12, a shower head 21 for supplying process gas to the
process chamber 12, a hollow table shape case 13 defining an upper
cylindrical portion 32 having a large diameter corresponding the claimed
holder and a lower cylindrical portion 33 having a small diameter
corresponding to the claimed cylindrical support member airtighly fixed to
the bottom wall of the process chamber 12 and supporting the upper
cylindrical portion 32, a supply pipe 43 or 81 for supplying an inactive gas
into the hollow table shape case 13, and a pump 83 for evacuating the
inactive gas through an exhaust pipe 44 or 82 from the hollow table shape
case 13 (col. 1, ll. 7-11, col. 3, l. 59 to col. 5, l. 42, col. 7, ll. 10-28, and
Figs. 1, 2, and 4).
4
Appeal 2009-004846
Application 10/478,278

2. Murakami describes that the upper cylindrical portion 32, which is
airtighly closed by a top plate 31 having a uniform thickness and a mounting
surface for a semiconductor wafer, houses a resistance heating body 14 (col.
4, ll. 17-61 and Fig. 2).
3. Murakami’s hollow table shape case 13 is formed of quartz, sapphire,
SiO2, Al2O, or AlN (col. 4, ll. 8-13).
5. According to page 6 of the Answer, Yoshiyuki is relied upon to teach
that “the coolant gas evacuates via line 10 and the reactive gas evacuates via
line 6a, both these evacuation lines merge partway and share evacuation
apparatus, pump 6.”
6. According to page 7 of the Answer, Komino is relied upon to teach “a
treatment apparatus control featuring a vacuum double pipe 313.”

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
During examination, all words in a claim are normally given their
broadest reasonable construction consistent with the Specification. In re
Icon Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In
other words, the broadest meaning that can be imputed to such words must
be reasonable and consistent with the Specification. In re Fout, 675 F.2d
297, 300 (CCPA 1982) (“Claims must always be read in light of the
specification. Here, the specification makes plain what appellants did and
did not invent….”); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (“The specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction
analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning
of a disputed term.”)
5
Appeal 2009-004846
Application 10/478,278

For a claim to be anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), each claim
element must be disclosed, either expressly or inherently, in a single prior art
reference, and the claimed arrangement or combination of those elements
must also be disclosed, either expressly or inherently, in that same prior art
reference. Therasence, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., 593 F.3d 1325,
1332-33 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
"[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007),
quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case
of unpatentability. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
(“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on
any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.”).

ANALYSIS
As indicated by Appellants at pages 7 through 9 of the Appeal Brief,
claim 1 requires, inter alia, a resistive heating element be embedded in a
ceramic holder. The Specification at paragraph 0023 and Figures 1 through
4 evince that the term “embedded” is used in connection with placing the
resistive heating element 7 in a solid ceramic holder 2. Thus, when the term
“embedded” is given the broadest reasonable meaning consistent with the
Specification, it requires that the resistive heating element be placed within a
solid ceramic holder. This interpretation is further supported by the
subsequent claim language “said resistive heating element being isolated
6
Appeal 2009-004846
Application 10/478,278

from an atmosphere within the [hollow] cylindrical support member” since
for the resistive heating element to be isolated from (not exposed to) an
atmosphere in the claimed hollow cylindrical support member, it must be
located in the solid ceramic holder as illustrated in Figures 1 through 4 of the
present application.
Having interpreted claim 1 as indicated supra, we concur with
Appellants that Murakami’s resistance heating body 14 is neither embedded
in a solid ceramic holder nor isolated from an atmosphere in the hollow
lower cylindrical portion 33 (corresponding to the claimed cylindrical
support member) of the hollow table shape case 13. As is apparent from
Figures 1, 2, and 4 and column 4 of Murakami, its resistance heating body
14 is housed in the hollow upper cylindrical portion 32 (corresponding to the
claimed ceramic holder), which is in fluid communication with the hollow
lower cylindrical portion 33 of the hollow table shape case 13. Thus, on this
record, the Examiner has not shown that Murakami teaches or describes the
limitations “a resistive heating element which is embedded in the ceramic
holder” and “said resistive heating element being isolated from an
atmosphere within the cylindrical support member” recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting the
claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a).
ORDER
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
tc

MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
600 13TH STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005-3096
7