Ex Parte Quan

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 29, 2012

11305389 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 29, 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.
11/305,389 12/16/2005 Yong-Chun Quan 6534-021 9608
83219 7590 08/29/2012
Renaissance IP Law Group LLP (Portland IP)
9600 SW OAK ST. SUITE 560
PORTLAND, OR 97223
EXAMINER
CHEN, KEATH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2012 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 YONG-CHUN QUAN
____________

Appeal 2011-003884
Application 11/305,389
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-5, 9-11, 14, 15, 17, and 21-24. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is set
forth below:
Appeal 2011-003884
Application 11/305,389

2
1. A susceptor for an apparatus fabricating a thin film on a substrate,
comprising:

a body supported by a supporter therebelow,

a laying groove at a top surface of the body;

a temperature adjuster in the laying groove; and

a cover covering the temperature adjuster in the laying groove such
that the substrate can be disposed on top surfaces of the body and the cover
simultaneously, wherein the cover has a top flat surface that substantially
completely covers the temperature adjuster, and wherein the top flat surface
of the cover is on the same level with a top flat surface of the body.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Stone et al. (Stone) US 2002/006651 A1 Jun. 6, 2002
Sherstinsky et al. (Sherstinsky) 6,464,795 B1 Oct. 15, 2002
Choi KR 2003/0081540 Oct. 22, 2003

THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-3, 17, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Choi in view of Sherstinsky.
2. Claims 4-5, 9-11, 14-15, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Choi and Sherstinsky, and further in
view of Stone.

Appeal 2011-003884
Application 11/305,389

3
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in determining that the combination of Choi in
view of Sherstinsky suggests the claimed subject matter, in particular, the
aspect of claim 1 pertaining to:
a cover covering the temperature adjuster in the laying groove such
that the substrate can be disposed on top surfaces of the body and the
cover simultaneously, wherein the cover has a top flat surface that
substantially completely covers the temperature adjuster, and wherein
the top flat surface of the cover is on the same level with a top flat
surface of the body?
We answer this question in the negative and AFFIRM.

ANALYSIS

As an initial matter, Appellant has not presented separate arguments
for all of the rejected claims. Rather, Appellant’s arguments are principally
directed to independent claim 1. Any claim not separately argued will stand
or fall with its respective independent claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)
(1)(vii). Also, we focus on Rejection 1 and our determination made with
respect to Rejection 1 is dispositive for Rejection 2 based upon Appellant’s
similar arguments for each rejection.
We essentially adopt the Examiner’s findings pertinent to the issue
raised by Appellant for the rejections. We therefore incorporate the
Examiner’s position as set forth in the Answer. We add the following for
emphasis only.
Appellant’s claimed subject matter is depicted in Figure 4, reproduced
below:
Appeal 2011-003884
Application 11/305,389

4

Cover 102 covers temperature adjuster 90. According to claim 1,
cover 102 has a top flat surface “that substantially completely covers the
temperature adjuster [90], and wherein the top flat surface of the cover [102]
is on the same level with a top flat surface of the body [110]”.
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in asserting that Choi teaches
the above-mentioned features of claim 1. Br. 8. Appellant reproduced both
Figures 3 and 7 of Choi at the top of page 9 of the Brief to support the
argued position in this regard, and these figures are also reproduced below:

Appellant argues that a substrate could not be simultaneously
disposed on the top surface of the body and cover 10 or cover 14 of Choi.
Appeal 2011-003884
Application 11/305,389

5
Appellant argues that, instead, the substrate would be disposed over and
above the top surface of the cover 10 or cover 14 with space therebetween.
We are not convinced by this argument for the reason stated by the
Examiner on pages 6-7 of the Answer. Therein, the Examiner correctly
states that Appellant does not address the combination of references in
making this argument. The rejection is based upon Choi in view
Sherstinsky. The Examiner explains that the rejection modifies Choi by
incorporating the teachings of Sherstinsky of providing a sealing member
around the outer surface of a heating element for the purpose of minimizing
the formation of air pockets in the groove. As a result, the Examiner
explains that replacing cover 10 or 11 of Choi with the sealing member of
Sherstinsky results in the claimed "substrate can be disposed on top surfaces
of the body and the cover simultaneously" and the claimed "top flat surface
of the cover is on the same level with a top flat surface of the body." Ans. 7.
Appellant then asserts that the combination does not teach the claimed
subject matter because Figure 7 of Sherstinsky shows that portions 70 and
72 need to be secured together. Br. 9. Again, we agree with the Examiner’s
response to this argument as set forth on page 8 of the Answer, and
incorporate his response as our own. Appellant again is attacking the
references individually rather than the combined teachings as presented by
the Examiner in his rejection. Such arguments are not convincing of error.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art; one cannot show
non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections
are based on combinations of references. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591
Appeal 2011-003884
Application 11/305,389

6
(Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097-98 (Fed. Cir.
1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
In view of the above, we affirm Rejections 1 and 2.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
Each rejection is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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

cam