GTAT Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 26, 2021

2020000351 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2021)

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.
14/142,982 12/30/2013 Jeffrey C. Gum AMS_GT017-US_DPB 5975
24222 7590 01/26/2021
Maine Cernota & Rardin
547 Amherst Street
3rd Floor
Nashua, NH 03063
EXAMINER
BENNETT, CHARLEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1718
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/26/2021 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):
dpassen@mcr-ip.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
patents@mcr-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFREY C. GUM, BRYCE E. CLARK, PAUL E. GANNON,
MIKE MCFARLAND, and SHIVA MANDEPUDI
Appeal 2020-000351
Application 14/142,982
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), The Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 16–35. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as GTAT
Corporation (Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2020-000351
Application 14/142,982

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method for applying a metal nitride layer
onto an inner surface of an enclosure for a chemical vapor deposition
reactor. Claim 16, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
16. A method of applying a metal nitride layer onto an inner surface
of an enclosure for a chemical vapor deposition ("CVD") reactor, the
method comprising:
providing a CVD enclosure that is configured for attachment to a
reactor base plate so as to form a reaction chamber within which
materials placed within the reaction chamber can be heated to achieve
melting and/or deposition of a chemical agent upon said materials;
attaching a compatible deposition base plate to the CVD
enclosure so that the deposition base plate and the CVD
enclosure, in combination, form a sealed deposition chamber, the
deposition base plate including a metal nitride deposition source
extending from the deposition base plate into an interior of the
deposition chamber, said deposition base plate being distinct from
said reactor base plate; and
depositing a metal nitride layer from the deposition source
onto an interior surface of the CVD enclosure during a
deposition period.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Appeal 2020-000351
Application 14/142,982

3
Name Reference Date
Rigney US 5,368,888 Nov. 29, 1994
Vandenbulcke US 5,925,422 July 20, 1999
Halpin US 2002/0011211 A1 Jan. 31, 2002
Leverenz US 2002/0102403 A1 Aug. 1, 2002
O'Donnell US 2003/0181065 A1 Sept. 25, 2003
Tokie US 2007/0163494 A1 July 19, 2007
Hwang US 2007/0180676 A1 Aug. 9, 2007
Gum US 2011/0318909 A1 Dec. 29, 2011
Nosaka JP 2526883 B2 June 14, 1996
Sonoda WO 2012086568 A1 June 28, 2012
REJECTIONS
Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
16, 24–31 103 Gum, Rigney,
O'Donnell
17 103 Gum, Rigney,
O'Donnell,
Vandenbulcke
18 103 Gum, Rigney,
O'Donnell, Nosaka
19, 20, 32 103 Gum, Rigney,
O'Donnell, Halpin
21 103 Gum, Rigney,
O'Donnell, Leverenz
22, 23 103 Gum, Rigney,
O'Donnell, Sonoda
33 103 Gum, Rigney,
O'Donnell,
Vandenbulcke, Nosaka,
Halpin
34 103 Gum, Rigney,
O'Donnell, Hwang,
Tokie
35 103 Gum, Rigney,
O'Donnell,
Vandenbulcke, Nosaka,
Sonoda, Hwang, Tokie
Appeal 2020-000351
Application 14/142,982

4
OPINION
We need address only the broadest independent claim, i.e., claim 16.2
That claim requires providing a CVD enclosure that is configured for
attachment to a reactor base plate, and attaching to the CVD enclosure a
compatible deposition base plate that is distinct from the reactor base plate.
Gum discloses a reactor base plate which is the same as the
Appellant’s reactor base plate (item 106 in Gum’s Fig. 2 and the Appellant’s
Fig. 1). Gum’s reactor base plate is attached to an enclosure which is the
same as the Appellant’s enclosure (bell jar 108; Gum, ¶ 28, Fig. 2;
Appellant’s Spec. ¶ 3, Fig. 1). Gum’s enclosure is coated by conventional
techniques with a radiation shield consisting of a layer of gold on a layer of
nickel (¶¶ 45).
Rigney discloses a method for applying an aluminide coating
simultaneously to the interior and exterior of articles (31), particularly
airfoils, supported on a substantially cylindrical article holder (20), by
flowing a reactive halide gas over aluminum powder or pellets (36) to form
aluminum halide gas in a the interior chamber (16) of a retort bell (12)
sealed to a base plate (14), and flowing the aluminum halide gas over the
interior and exterior surfaces of the articles (col. 1, ll. 12–13; col. 3, l. 57 –
col. 4, l. 9; col. 5, ll. 20–26; col. 6, ll. 6–7; Fig. 2).
O’Donnell forms a wear resistant coating on interior surfaces of
semiconductor processing chamber walls and chamber components by

2 The Examiner does not rely upon the references other than Gum, Rigney,
and O’Donnell to remedy the deficiency in those references as to the
limitations in claim 16 (Non-Final Rej. 11–26).
Appeal 2020-000351
Application 14/142,982

5
plasma spraying them with a ceramic material that can be a nitride (¶¶ 14,
30, 36, 55; Fig. 4).
The Examiner finds “that the deposition plate (14) of Rigney is
distinct from the reactor base plate of Gum” (Non-Final Rej. 7), and states
that “Gum teaches a reactor base plate (106 [base plate], see para. [0028])
and Rigney is relied upon to teach another deposition base plate (14 [base
plate])” (Ans. 24). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to attach Rigney’s deposition base plate and
deposition source and configuration “to the chamber of Gum with
motivation to apply a uniform protective coating” (Non-Final Rej. 8).
Establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of an invention
comprising a combination of known elements requires “an apparent reason
to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
The Examiner provides no explanation as to how the applied
references would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an
apparent reason to attach Rigney’s base plate and equipment for coating
interior and exterior surfaces of articles to Gum’s reactor to provide a
uniform protective coating on some surface the Examiner does not identify.
Thus, the Examiner’s rejection clearly is based upon impermissible
hindsight in view of the Appellant’s disclosure. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d
1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“A rejection based on section 103 clearly must
rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be interpreted without hindsight
reconstruction of the invention from the prior art”).
For the above reasons we reverse the rejections.

Appeal 2020-000351
Application 14/142,982

6
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 16–35 is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
16, 24–31 103 Gum, Rigney,
O'Donnell
16, 24–31
17 103 Gum, Rigney,
O'Donnell,
Vandenbulcke
17
18 103 Gum, Rigney,
O'Donnell, Nosaka
18
19, 20, 32 103 Gum, Rigney,
O'Donnell, Halpin
19, 20, 32
21 103 Gum, Rigney,
O'Donnell,
Leverenz
21
22, 23 103 Gum, Rigney,
O'Donnell, Sonoda
22, 23
33 103 Gum, Rigney,
O'Donnell,
Vandenbulcke,
Nosaka, Halpin
33
34 103 Gum, Rigney,
O'Donnell, Hwang,
Tokie
34
35 103 Gum, Rigney,
O'Donnell,
Vandenbulcke,
Nosaka, Sonoda,
Hwang, Tokie
35
Overall
Outcome
16–35
REVERSED