Ex Parte Nguyen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2017

13525203 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 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.
13/525,203 06/15/2012 Son Nguyen 016265USA 5319
150369 7590 09/27/2017
Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt/AM AT
1211 SW Fifth Ave.
Suite 1900
Portland, OR 97204
EXAMINER
MILLER, JR, JOSEPH ALBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2017 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):
IPDocketing @ S CHWABE.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SON NGUYEN, DONALD OLGADO, and
YURIY MELNIK
Appeal 2017-001797
Application 13/525,2031
Technology Center 1700
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1—13 and 15—20.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).2
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Applied Materials, Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to the Appellants’ Specification (Spec.) filed June 15,
2012, Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed July 5, 2016, the
Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) dated Sept. 14, 2016, and Appellants’ Reply
Brief (Reply Br.) filed Nov. 14, 2016.
Appeal 2017-001797
Application 13/525,203
The subject matter on appeal relates to processing systems and
showerhead assemblies used to deposit Group-Ill nitrides (see, e.g., claims
1, 7, and 13; Spec. 2, 3). Appellants disclose Group-Ill nitrides can be
deposited via hydride vapor phase epitaxy (HVPE) but the processing gases
for HVPE may be corrosive, particularly at elevated temperatures. Id. 13.
In view of this, Appellants disclose processing systems that include a
material to protect gas-delivery systems from processing gases, including
processing gases heated to an elevated temperature. Id. 14.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief.3 Limitations at issue are italicized.
1. A processing system, comprising:
a processing chamber for processing substrates;
a gas delivery system for delivering a gallium chloride
precursor vapor at an elevated temperature of at least 120
degrees Celsius and less than 200 degrees Celsius to the
processing chamber, the gas delivery system is heated to an
elevated temperature of at least 120 degrees Celsius to avoid
condensing the gallium chloride precursor vapor, wherein the
gas delivery system includes tungsten as a substrate material for
protection from the gallium chloride precursor vapor;
a showerhead having a plate for distributing processing
gases including the gallium chloride precursor vapor to the
processing chamber, the plate including tungsten for protection
from processing gases', and
a protective coating applied to the plate, wherein the
protective coating is applied to other components in the
processing chamber.
The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows:
(1) claims 1,3, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
3 Appeal Br. 26.
2
Appeal 2017-001797
Application 13/525,203
over Tam4 in view of Steidl5 and Vetrovec6 and further alternatively in view
of Kamber;7
(2) claims 2, 4—6, 13, and 15—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tam in view of Steidl, Vetrovec, and Kamber;8
(3) claims 7—12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Melnik9 in view of Kamber and Tam; and
(4) claims 7—12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tam
in view of Vetrovec and further alternatively in view of Kamber.
B. DISCUSSION
Rejection of Claims 1, 3, and 6
Claims 1, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tam in view of Steidl and Vetrovec and further
alternatively in view of Kamber.
Appellants set forth various arguments for each of the applied
references. Specifically, Appellants argue Tam does not disclose the use of
tungsten as a substrate material with a protective coating or the operating
temperature recited in claim 1; Steidl does not disclose a gas delivery system
that includes tungsten as a substrate material; Vetrovec is directed to a liquid
coolant, not a gas delivery system, and does not disclose a temperature for
4 Tam et al., US 2009/0095222 Al, published Apr. 16, 2009 (“Tam”).
5 Steidl et al., US 2008/0018004 Al, published Jan. 24, 2008 (“Steidl”).
6 Vetrovec, US 2009/0126922 Al, published May 21, 2009 (“Vetrovec”).
7 Kamber et al., US 2008/0083970 Al, published Apr. 10, 2008 (“Kamber”).
8 The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Tam in view of Steidl, Vetrovec, and alternatively Kamber has been
withdrawn. Ans. 14.
9 Melnik et al., US 2010/0273318 Al, published Oct. 28, 2010 (“Melnik”).
3
Appeal 2017-001797
Application 13/525,203
the liquid coolant flow channel; and Kamber is directed to making Al-
containing Group Ill-nitride semiconductive films and associated reactor
materials, not to a system using a gallium chloride precursor vapor. Appeal
Br. 6—11; Reply Br. 3—8. Appellants sum these arguments thusly:
the Examiner is picking and choosing disparate features or
elements from different pieces of prior art and simply throwing
them into a basket to meet the limitation of a particular claim,
while the prior art for the obviousness rejections does not
actually teach the specific combined features of the invention.
Reply Br. 2—3.
These arguments are unpersuasive because they address the applied
references individually, not what the combination of the applied references
would have suggested.10 “[T]he test for combining references is not what
the individual references themselves suggest but rather what the combination
of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the
art.” In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).
Here, the Examiner finds Tam discloses a processing system including
a chamber for processing a substrate, a gas delivery system for providing
gallium chloride as a precursor, and a showerhead assembly comprising a
plate with a protective material. Ans. 3. Tam discloses systems for hydride
vapor phase epitaxy (HVPE) of Group 111-nitride films, such as GaN and
AlGaN, by using a precursor gas, such as gallium chloride. Tam || 2, 28,
10 Appellants cite most of the recitations of claim 1 at pages 12—13 of the
Appeal Brief and assert the combination of Tam, Steidl, Vetrovec, and
Kamber does not disclose the recitations. This argument does not identify a
reversible error because it lacks any degree of specificity and amounts to no
more than a recitation of claim limitations. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356,
1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072 (BPAI 2010).
4
Appeal 2017-001797
Application 13/525,203
41, 88. A system can include a chamber 102,11 a gas delivery system 125,
and a showerhead assembly 104 that includes various plates 233, 210, 230.
Id. 29, 62. Therefore, the disclosure of Tam supports the Examiner’s
findings.
Tam discloses materials for the showerhead 104, such as stainless
steel, nickel-based alloys, and tantalum, that are resistant to reaction from
chemical precursors. Id. 1 61. The Examiner finds Tam does not disclose a
plate of the showerhead includes tungsten material and a protective coating
applied to the plate and to other components in the processing chamber, as
recited in claim 1. Ans. 3. In addition, although Tam discloses a heat
exchanging apparatus for the showerhead, discloses control of the
temperature for showerhead assembly 104 features “is desirable to reduce or
eliminate formation of condensates on the showerhead assembly 104,”12 and
discloses heating the supply lines 131, 132 for precursor gas,13 Tam does not
disclose the temperatures recited in claim 1. Id.
The Examiner finds Steidl discloses a processing chamber having a
gas delivery system for delivering gallium trichloride that is above 80
degrees. Ans. 3. Steidl discloses an apparatus for gallium film deposition
via HVPE by delivering a high flow of high purity GaCf vapor. Steidl 112.
Steidl discloses this is accomplished by heating solid GaCf to a temperature
range at which it has a high vapor pressure, such as above 78°C and up to
130°C. Steidl H 15—16. Steidl discloses this permits GaCf to be delivered
to a reaction zone at a flow rate of 300-400 grams per hour at 110°C to
11 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, we present labels to elements in
figures in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
12 Tam 153.
13 Tam 1 89.
5
Appeal 2017-001797
Application 13/525,203
140°C, “which is desireable [sic] for economic production of high purity
gallium-containing compounds.” Id. 129.
In view of the above, the disclosures of Tam and Steidl, when
considered as a whole, suggest heating a gas delivery system for gallium
chloride and the gallium chloride itself to a temperature of 110°C to 140°C
so gallium-containing compounds can be produced economically. The
combination of Tam and Steidl would avoid condensing gallium chloride
precursor vapor because the combination suggests temperatures recited in
claim 1 and because Tam discloses controlling the showerhead temperature
“to reduce or eliminate formation of condensates on the showerhead
assembly 104.” Tam | 53.
Appellants assert Steidl discloses that existing liquid vapor delivery
systems cannot accommodate temperatures above 80 degrees C because of
their low temperature capabilities and the highly corrosive nature of chlorine
chemistry. Appeal Br. 8. As stated by the Examiner at pages 15—16 of the
Examiner’s Answer, the portion of Steidl’s disclosure cited by Appellants
regards existing systems prior to Steidl’s invention. Steidl discloses a
system capable of being heating a gas delivery system up to 130°C and
gallium chloride gas to 110°C to 140°C, as discussed above. Thus, the
disclosure of Steidl supports the Examiner’s findings and the temperature
ranges disclosed by Steidl overlap with those recited in claim 1, which
provides a prima facie case of obviousness. Ans. 4.
The Examiner finds Tam, as modified by Steidl, does not disclose a
showerhead plate including tungsten as a substrate material and a protective
coating applied to the plate and to other components in the processing
chamber, as recited in claim 1. Ans. 4.
6
Appeal 2017-001797
Application 13/525,203
The Examiner finds Vetrovec discloses that gallium is corrosive and
tungsten and tantalum are materials known to protect parts from its
corrosiveness. Id. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to
form parts of Tam, as modified by Steidl, to use any combination of tungsten
and tantalum because these are materials known to resist the corrosiveness
of gallium. Id.
Appellants contend Vetrovec’s disclosure of the corrosiveness of
liquid gallium cannot be equated with gallium chloride vapor. Appeal Br.
12; Reply Br. 9—10. This argument is unpersuasive. The Examiner explains
Vetrovec “teaches the applicability of tungsten and tantalum to avoid the
corrosiveness of gallium in general,” one would expect at least as much
corrosiveness at higher temperatures, and one would reasonably expect such
corrosiveness in a different state (i.e., vapor). Ans. 18. Moreover, Tam
recognizes the corrosiveness of gallium precursors by disclosing showerhead
materials that are resistant to reaction with the precursors. Tam 161.
Vetrovec discloses additional materials that would be resistant to reactions
with gallium. Appellants’ arguments do not identify a reversible error in the
Examiner’s findings.
Kamber further demonstrates it was known to use materials to resist
corrosion from chloride gases. Ans. 5. Specifically, the Examiner cites
paragraph 84 of Kamber, which states reactor materials may include “pure
refractory metals and metal alloys containing tungsten, tantalum” and other
materials that “may be used in any combination and/or form (e.g., coating,
plate, tube, bulk geometrical shape) as an anti-corrosive, protective
material.” Id. Thus, Kamber suggests it was known to use tungsten and
7
Appeal 2017-001797
Application 13/525,203
tantalum in any combination and/or form, such as for bulk material (e.g., the
substrate of a plate) and as coatings to avoid corrosion.
Appellants argue Kamber discloses a list of coatings known to be
resistant to corrosion by halogenated aluminum products but “Kamber does
not specifically disclose a protective coating being applied to a tungsten
plate of the showerhead to protect the showerhead from processing gases
including a gallium chloride precursor” and “Kamber discloses the
desirability of applying a protective coating to graphite (not tungsten).”
Appeal Br. 11 (emphases omitted).
These arguments are also unpersuasive. Kamber is directed to the
growth of Group Ill-nitride semiconductor compounds containing
aluminum, such as AlGaN and AlGalnN, via HVPE. Kamber || 6, 19, 37.
Tam also discloses the production of AlGaN. Tam 128, 41. Therefore, the
anti-corrosion materials disclosed by Kamber would be useful in Tam’s
process. Moreover, Kamber discloses its corrosion resistant materials “may
be used to coat all surfaces within the reactor to prevent unwanted
corrosion” and “may be used to coat any bulk material, but are especially
suitable for coating graphite components.” Kamber | 52. Thus, Kamber’s
reference to graphite is a disclosure of a preferred embodiment, which does
not constitute a teaching away from its broader disclosure of materials to
avoid corrosion from chloride precursor gases. See In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442,
446 n.3 (CCPA1971).
In addition, Appellants assert the applied references do not suggest a
combination with one another and the Examiner has engaged in
impermissible hindsight to reject claim 1. Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 3, 9.
This argument is also unpersuasive because Steidl discloses heating gallium
8
Appeal 2017-001797
Application 13/525,203
chloride to raise its vapor pressure, which provides a flow rate of a gallium-
containing compound to a reactor that is desirable for the economic
production of such compounds. Steidl 15—16, 29.
With regard to the use of protective materials, Tam recognizes the
corrosiveness of gallium precursors by disclosing showerhead materials that
are resistant to reaction with the precursors. Tam 161. Vetrovec and
Kamber disclose materials that resist the corrosiveness of materials used in
Tam’s process. Thus, the disclosures of Vetrovec and Kamber demonstrate
the selection of those materials in the various forms disclosed by at least
Kamber would have been a predictable use of known materials according to
their known functions.
If a person of ordinary skill i n the art can implement a predictable
variation, and would see the benefit of doing so, § 103 likely bars
its patentability. Moreover, if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art
would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond that person's skill. A court must ask
whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of
prior art elements according to their established functions.
KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc, 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007).
Appellants do not argue claims 3 and 6 separately from claim 1.
Appeal Br. 13.
For the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the Examiner’s
Answer, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1, 3, and 6.
Rejection of Claims 2, 4—6, 13, and 15—20
Claims 2, 4—6, 13, and 15—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tam in view of Steidl, Vetrovec, and Kamber.
9
Appeal 2017-001797
Application 13/525,203
For claims 2, 5, and 6, which depend from claim 1, for independent
claim 13, and for claims 15—20, which depend from claim 13, Appellants
cite the arguments discussed above for claim 1. Appeal Br. 14—15.
Appellants state claim 4 forms a claim group that is separate from the
group for claims 1,3, and 6 as well as the group for claims 2, 5, 6, 13, and
15—20. Id. at 6. For claim 4, Appellants quote the recitations of claim 4 and
assert “[t]he references alone or in combination fail to disclose this
limitation that requires a tungsten plate of a showerhead to be coated with a
tantalum alloy and a tantalum outer layer.” Id. at 15. However, this
“separate” argument amounts to no more than a recitation of the additional
limitations of the dependent claim and a generic denial that the applied
references teach or suggest the additional limitations. We and our reviewing
court have long held that such “argument” does not merit separate
consideration. See, e.g., In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require
more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the
claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were
not found in the prior art.”). Thus, as stated by the Examiner at page 19 of
the Examiner’s Answer, claims 2, 4—6, 13 and 15—20 have not been argued
separately and are addressed on the same basis.
For the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the Examiner’s
Answer, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 2, 4—6, 13, and
15-20.
Rejection of Claims 7—12 over Melnik, Kamber, and Tam
Claims 7—12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
10
Appeal 2017-001797
Application 13/525,203
over Melnik in view of Kamber and Tam.
The Examiner finds Melnik discloses an apparatus for forming group
Ill-nitride films that includes a process chamber, a showerhead with a plate,
and a heater to control the temperature of the process chamber. Ans. 9. The
Examiner finds Kamber discloses the use of the recited materials and their
forms and Tam discloses the heat sink to control a showerhead temperature,
as recited in claim 7. Id. at 9-10.
Similar to the rejection of claim 1 discussed above, Appellants set
forth various arguments for each of Melnik, Kamber, and Tam but do not
address what the combination of the applied references would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.14 In particular, Appellants argue
Melnik15 does not disclose a coating material for its showerhead or the use
of a heat sink; Kamber does not disclose the heater or heat sink of claim 7;
and Tam does not disclose the specific materials recited in claim 7. Appeal
Br. 16—20; Reply Br. 11—12.
These arguments are unpersuasive. As discussed above with regard to
14 Appellants cite most of the recitations of claim 7 at page 21 of the Appeal
Brief and assert the combination of Melnik, Kamber, and Tam does not
disclose the recitations. As discussed above with regard to the rejection over
claim 1, such an argument does not identity a reversible error because it
lacks any degree of specificity.
15 Appellants argue the Examiner finds Melnik discloses a tungsten plate at
page 8 of the Final Office Action dated January 19, 2016. Appeal Br. 18—
19. This is unpersuasive because at that page the Examiner finds “Melnik is
silent on the showerhead composition,” finds Kamber teaches any
combination of tungsten and tantalum in any combination and/or form can
be used, and states “therefore the combination of tungsten plate coated with
a tantalum alloy and a tantalum layer is envisioned within the realm of
Kamber’s teachings of an effective composition of the showerhead plate of
Melnik.”
11
Appeal 2017-001797
Application 13/525,203
the rejection of claim 1, Kamber demonstrates it was known to use materials
to resist corrosion by chloride gases, such as “pure refractory metals and
metal alloys containing tungsten, tantalum,” which “may be used in any
combination and/or form (e.g., coating, plate, tube, bulk geometrical shape)
as an anti-corrosive, protective material.” Kamber | 84. Both Kamber and
Melnik are directed to forming semiconductor devices comprising Group III-
nitride materials that include aluminum via HVPE. Kamber H 6, 9, 13, 19,
37; Melnik || 34—36, 48-49. Therefore, the disclosure of Kamber suggests
it was known to use tungsten and tantalum in any combination and/or form,
such as for bulk material (e.g., the bulk material of a plate) and as coatings
to avoid corrosion via chloride precursor gas used in an HVPE process.
Appellants’ arguments that Melnik and Tam do not disclose the materials of
claim 7 do not address the Examiner’s rejection and what the applied
references as a whole would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art.
Moreover, the Examiner finds Melnik discloses a heater to heat a
processing chamber,16 which is supported by paragraph 52 of Melnik. The
Examiner also finds Tam discloses a heat sink coupled to a showerhead.
Ans. 10. Paragraphs 51—54 of Tam disclose a heat exchanging apparatus to
maintain the temperature of the showerhead assembly at about 50°C to about
350°C. Thus, Appellants’ arguments that Melnik does not disclose a heat
sink and Kamber does not disclose a heater or a heat sink also do not address
the Examiner’s rejection and what the applied references as a whole would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.
16 Ans. 9.
12
Appeal 2017-001797
Application 13/525,203
Appellants further argue Kamber discloses a list of coatings known to
be resistant to corrosion by halogenated aluminum products but “Kamber
does not specifically disclose a protective coating being applied to a tungsten
plate of the showerhead to protect the showerhead from processing gases
including a gallium chloride precursor wherein the protective coating
includes a tantalum alloy and a tantalum layer” and “[rjather, Kamber
discloses the suitability of applying a protective coating to graphite
(crystalline form of carbon).” Appeal Br. 19 (emphases omitted).
These arguments are also unpersuasive. As discussed above for the
rejection of claim 1, Kamber is directed to the growth of Group Ill-nitride
semiconductor compounds containing aluminum, such as AlGaN and
AlGalnN, via HVPE, like Melnik. Kamber H 6, 19, 37; Melnik 1 5, 34-36,
48 49. Therefore, the anti-corrosion materials disclosed by Kamber would
be useful in Melnik’s process. Moreover, Kamber discloses its corrosion
resistant materials “may be used to coat all surfaces within the reactor to
prevent unwanted corrosion” and “may be used to coat any bulk material,
but are especially suitable for coating graphite components.” Kamber | 52.
Thus, Kamber’s reference to graphite is a disclosure of a preferred
embodiment, which does not constitute a teaching away from its broader
disclosure of materials to avoid corrosion from chloride precursor gases.
In addition, Appellants argue the Examiner has engaged in
impermissible hindsight and the applied references do not suggest the
proposed combination. Appeal Br. 20-21. These arguments are
unpersuasive. Kamber discloses materials that resist the corrosiveness of
materials used in Melnik’s process and thus demonstrate the selection of
those materials in the various forms disclosed by Kamber would have been a
13
Appeal 2017-001797
Application 13/525,203
predictable use of known materials according to their known functions.
Further, the Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to use the heat
exchanger of Tam to help control the temperature of Melnik’s showerhead.
Ans. 10. Therefore, the Examiner has articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness that
claim 7 would have been obvious over the combination of Melnik, Kamber,
and Tam. Appellants’ arguments do not identify a reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection.
Appellants do not argue claims 8—12 separately from claim 7. Appeal
Br. 22.
For the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the Examiner’s
Answer, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 7—12 over
Melnik, Kamber, and Tam.
Rejection of Claims 7—12 over Tam and Vetrovec or Kamber
Claims 7—12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Tam in view of Vetrovec and further alternatively in view of Kamber.
The Examiner finds Tam discloses the recitations of claim 7 except
the showerhead plate being a tungsten plate and having a protective coating
including tantalum alloy and a tantalum layer. Ans. 12. The Examiner cites
Vetrovec and Kamber for their disclosures of anti-corrosive materials. Id. at
12—13. As discussed above with regard to claim 1, Vetrovec and Kamber
disclose materials that resist the corrosiveness of materials used in Tam’s
process and thus demonstrate the selection of those materials in the various
forms disclosed by at least Kamber would have been a predictable use of
known materials according to their known functions.
14
Appeal 2017-001797
Application 13/525,203
Appellants set forth arguments for Vetrovec and Kamber individually
but do not address what the combination of the applied references would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.17 Specifically, Appellants
assert Kamber does not explicitly disclose a protective coating being applied
to a tungsten plate of a showerhead and Kamber instead discloses applying a
coating to graphite. Appeal Br. 22—23; Reply Br. 11—12. As discussed
above with regard to claim 1, this argument is unpersuasive because Kamber
is directed to the growth of the same materials as Tam, discloses protective
materials in any combination and/or form useful for a system to grow the
materials, and Kamber’s disclosure of a preferred embodiment (i.e., coating
graphite) does not constitute a teaching away from its broader disclosure of
materials to avoid corrosion from chloride precursor gases.
With regard to Vetrovec, Appellants contend Vetrovec is directed to a
liquid coolant, not a gas delivery system, and does not disclose a
temperature for the liquid coolant flow channel.18 Appeal Br. 23—24. These
arguments are unpersuasive. As discussed above with regard to the rejection
of claim 1, the Examiner explains Vetrovec “teaches the applicability of
tungsten and tantalum to avoid the corrosiveness of gallium in general,” one
would expect as least as much corrosiveness at higher temperatures, and one
17 Appellants cite most of the recitations of claim 7 at page 24 of the Appeal
Brief and assert the combination of Tam, Vetrovec, and Kamber does not
disclose the recitations. As discussed above with regard to the rejection over
claim 1, this argument does not identify a reversible error because it lacks
any degree of specificity.
18 The Examiner finds Tam discloses the heat sink recited in claim 7. Ans.
12. The disclosure of Tam supports the Examiner’s finding by disclosing a
heat exchange system that can be controlled to maintain showerhead
temperature at about 50°C to about 350°C. Tam | 54.
15
Appeal 2017-001797
Application 13/525,203
would reasonably expect such corrosiveness in a different state (i.e., vapor).
Ans. 18. Moreover, Tam recognizes the corrosiveness of gallium precursors
by disclosing showerhead materials that are resistant to reaction with the
precursors. Tam | 61. Vetrovec discloses additional materials that would be
resistant to reactions with gallium. As a result, Appellants’ arguments do
not identify a reversible error and a preponderance of the evidence supports
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7.
Appellants do not argue claims 8—12 separately from claim 7. Appeal
Br. 24.
For the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the Examiner’s
Answer, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 7—12 over Tam
and Vetrovec or Kamber.
C. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
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
16