DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
The claims are newly amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-12, filed 8/27/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11-15, 20-23, 25, 26, 30, 31, 33-46 under the Final have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the reference below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-15, 20-23, 25, 26, 30, 31, 33-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11, line 9, Claim 20, line 17 and Claim 22, line 15 states “wherein a thermal conductivity of the SiC structure is direction-dependent”. This is new matter and not supported in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest (US Pub.: 2010/0291328) and further in view of Nagasawa (EP 1179620) and in view of Pickering (EP 0582444) and in view of Ohta (EP 1865553).
Claim interpretation: Claim 11 describes the crystal grain structure in the SiC has a length in a first direction that is longer than a length in a second direction (Claim 11, lines 4-5). The first direction is perpendicular to the first surface and the first surface is a planar surface most exposed to the plasma (Claim 11, lines 6-7). Since the first surface is a planar surface most exposed to the plasma, this will be interpreted as the top surface. The first direction, which is perpendicular to this is described in the specification as including a height direction of the material (see Published specification, para. 71).
Claim 11 is a composition claim. The words “which is used” are treated as intended use. Therefore, the feature describing the composition as being used by exposure to a plasma inside a chamber, where the plasma approaches a first surface of the SiC above the SiC structure within a chamber, are intended use features.
As to the rest of the claimed features, Forrest describes a silicon carbide article formed by chemical vapor deposition (title). The silicon carbide has a crystal structure (abstract, para. 28) in the shape of grains (para. 24). In the prior art, Forrest explains that the grains have their long direction oriented perpendicular to the plane of the finished part (para. 20, 44 and Fig. 5, para. 52 and Fig. 13). Forrest explains that as materials are deposited by chemical vapor deposition, the size of grains increases as the growth proceeds away from the substrate (para. 20, 85). Although Forrest explains that this is not necessarily desirable, the courts have held that:
A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Claims were directed to an epoxy resin based printed circuit material. A prior art reference disclosed a polyester-imide resin based printed circuit material, and taught that although epoxy resin based materials have acceptable stability and some degree of flexibility, they are inferior to polyester-imide resin based materials. The court held the claims would have been obvious over the prior art because the reference taught epoxy resin based material was useful for applicant’s purpose, applicant did not distinguish the claimed epoxy from the prior art epoxy, and applicant asserted no discovery beyond what was known to the art.). See MPEP 2145:
And also, see MPEP 2131.05: a reference is no less anticipatory if, after disclosing the invention, the reference then disparages it. The question whether a reference “teaches away” from the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis. Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (The prior art was held to anticipate the claims even though it taught away from the claimed invention. “The fact that a modem with a single carrier data signal is shown to be less than optimal does not vitiate the fact that it is disclosed.”). See Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(claimed composition that expressly excluded an ingredient held anticipated by reference composition that optionally included that same ingredient); see also Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1948 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Claimed composition was anticipated by prior art reference that inherently met claim limitation of “sufficient aeration” even though reference taught away from air entrapment or purposeful aeration.).
As to the resistivity, Forrest does not describe that the resistivity of the SiC product has a resistivity in a first direction of 3.0 x 10-3 to 25 Ωcm and a resistivity in a second direction of 1.4x10-3 to 40 Ωcm.
The specification of this application explains that to make the SiC product, the product is formed using a CVD process (PG Pub. of the current specification, para. 0166). The material is also doped using a dopant in an amount of 1x1018 atoms/cc or less, which then reduces the resistivity of the SiC product (PG Pub of current Application, para. 0122). As a result of the process of making, the specification states that the resistivity in the first and second direction are formed (PG Pub, para. 0107).
Nagasawa describes a silicon carbide product and process of making (title). The method of making the product involves epitaxially growing a thin film using CVD (para. 21). The SiC is doped during formation (para. 21). The dopant is added to the SiC material in an amount of 1x1013/cm3 to 1x1021/cm3 (para. 27).
By adding impurities as dopants in this way, Nagasawa explains that this decreases the on-resistance (para. 4), while balancing the consideration of breakdown voltage of the semiconductor (para. 5).
Forrest also describes doping the SiC with nitrogen (para. 113).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the nitrogen dopant to the SiC in an amount of 1x1013/cm3 to 1x1021/cm3, as taught by Nagasawa for use with the nitrogen-doped SiC of Forrest because Nagasawa explains that by adding dopants in this amount, certain qualities of the SiC semiconductor are preferentially optimized.
Furthermore, since the disclosure of this application states that their process dopes using a dopant in an amount of 1x1018 atoms/cc or less, to reduce the resistivity to the desired range of 0.8 to 3 Ω in a first direction and a second direction of 2.5 Ω to 25 Ω, therefore, use of the same amount of dopants in the same amounts would result in the same resistivity ranges claimed.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same process would produce the same.
See MPEP section 2112.01(II): COMPOSITION CLAIMS — IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
: "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. (Applicant argued that the claimed composition was a pressure sensitive adhesive containing a tacky polymer while the product of the reference was hard and abrasion resistant. "The Board correctly found that the virtual identity of monomers and procedures sufficed to support a prima facie case of unpatentability of Spada’s polymer latexes for lack of novelty."). See MPEP section 2112.01 (II).
The references do not describe the thermal conductivity.
Pickering describes a method of making SiC using CVD (abstract). The reference explains that thermal conductivity is strongly dependent on the grain size and purity of the SiC (page 3, last line). That is, the thermal conductivity increases with increasing grain size and low impurity concentration along the grain boundaries (pg. 3, last line and pg. 4, line 1). Therefore, the thermal conductivity is controlled by deposition temperature, pressure and gas flow rates (pg 4, lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thermal conductivity values, as taught by Pickering for use with the product of Forrest and Nagasawa by altering the grain size and impurity concentration.
As to the specific value of the thermal conductivity, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as thermal conductivity through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to the direction dependence of the thermal conductivity of the SiC, Ohta describes a material with excellent thermal conduction performance used in electronic components (para. 2). The reference explains that this includes thermally conductive filler material that can be silicon carbide (para. 20). Ohta explains in the background art that thermal conduction performance is enhanced by orientating thermally conductive fibers in the direction of the thermal conduction (para. 3). As a result, Ohta teaches in their invention that at least part of the thermally conductive filler is oriented in a certain direction (para. 9), which then gives the thermal conductivity in the direction of orientation of the thermally conductive filler (para. 23, for example when the filler is oriented in the thickness direction, the thermal conductivity of the material is based on the width direction of the body and para. 24, the thermal conductivity is based on the orientation direction of the filler).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to orient the grains of Forrest, Nagasawa and Pickering in the direction where thermal conductivity is greatest, as taught by Ohta because Ohta explains that fillers with excellent thermal conduction performance is desirable for use in electronics.
As to Claims 12, 13, 14 and 15, The specification of this application explains that to make the SiC product, the product is formed using a CVD process (PG Pub. of the current specification, para. 0166). The material is also doped using a dopant in an amount of 1x1018 atoms/cc or less, which then reduces the resistivity of the SiC product (PG Pub of current Application, para. 0122). As a result of the process of making, the specification states that the resistivity in the first and second direction are formed (PG Pub, para. 0107).
Nagasawa describes a silicon carbide product and process of making (title). The method of making the product involves epitaxially growing a thin film using CVD (para. 21). The SiC is doped during formation (para. 21). The dopant is added to the SiC material in an amount of 1x1013/cm3 to 1x1021/cm3 (para. 27).
By adding impurities as dopants in this way, Nagasawa explains that this decreases the on-resistance (para. 4), while balancing the consideration of breakdown voltage of the semiconductor (para. 5).
Forrest also describes doping the SiC with nitrogen (para. 113).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the nitrogen dopant to the SiC in an amount of 1x1013/cm3 to 1x1021/cm3, as taught by Nagasawa for use with the nitrogen-doped SiC of Forrest because Nagasawa explains that by adding dopants in this amount, certain qualities of the SiC semiconductor are preferentially optimized.
Furthermore, since the disclosure of this application states that their process dopes using a dopant in an amount of 1x1018 atoms/cc or less, and the process of Forrest and Nagsawa add the same kind of dopant in the same amounts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same process used the same way with the same amounts of the compounds would reduce the resistivity to the desired range, particularly to where the resistivity of the first direction/second direction is 0.04-0.99 (Claim 12), the resistivity in the first direction is 1.8 to 3Ωcm a second direction of 0.8-1.7 Ωcm (Claim 13), the resistivity in the first direction/second direction 1.15 to 3.2 (Claim 14), the resistivity in the first direction is 3 x 10-3 Ωcm to 5 x 10-3 Ωcm and a resistivity in the second direction of 1.4 x 10-3 Ωcm to 3 x 10-3 Ωcm (Claim 15).
Therefore, use of the same amount of dopants in the same amounts would result in the same resistivity ranges claimed.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same process would produce the same.
See MPEP section 2112.01(II): COMPOSITION CLAIMS — IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
: "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. (Applicant argued that the claimed composition was a pressure sensitive adhesive containing a tacky polymer while the product of the reference was hard and abrasion resistant. "The Board correctly found that the virtual identity of monomers and procedures sufficed to support a prima facie case of unpatentability of Spada’s polymer latexes for lack of novelty."). See MPEP section 2112.01 (II).
Claim(s) 20, 21, 22, 30, 31, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest (US Pub.: 2010/0291328)) and in view of Pickering (EP 0582444) and in view of Ohta (EP 1865553).
Claims 20 and 22 are composition-type claim. The portion of the claims describing the product as being “formed by a CVD method”, line 1 of both claims, is a product-by-process feature. The feature of the claims describing that the plasma approaches a first surface of the SiC structure from a top of the chamber and that the first surface is planar and most exposed to the plasma are also considered product-by-process feature.
As to the “configured to be exposed to plasma inside a chamber” feature. These are intended use features.
As to the structure, Forrest teaches a substrate that is ring shaped (see Fig. 5) and that has a first surface forming an upper surface of the ring (Fig. 5) and a side surface along the ring, which can be considered a second surface (Fig. 5).
In the prior art, Forrest explains that the grains have their long direction oriented perpendicular to the plane of the finished part (para. 20, 44 and Fig. 5, para. 52 and Fig. 13). Forrest explains that as materials are deposited by chemical vapor deposition, the size of grains increases as the growth proceeds away from the substrate (para. 20, 85).
This meets the features that the crystal grain structure has a length in a first direction that is perpendicular to the first surface and parallel to the second surface and is longer in a second direction.
Although Forrest explains that this is not necessarily desirable, the courts have held that:
A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Claims were directed to an epoxy resin based printed circuit material. A prior art reference disclosed a polyester-imide resin based printed circuit material, and taught that although epoxy resin based materials have acceptable stability and some degree of flexibility, they are inferior to polyester-imide resin based materials. The court held the claims would have been obvious over the prior art because the reference taught epoxy resin based material was useful for applicant’s purpose, applicant did not distinguish the claimed epoxy from the prior art epoxy, and applicant asserted no discovery beyond what was known to the art.). See MPEP 2145:
And also, see MPEP 2131.05: a reference is no less anticipatory if, after disclosing the invention, the reference then disparages it. The question whether a reference “teaches away” from the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis. Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (The prior art was held to anticipate the claims even though it taught away from the claimed invention. “The fact that a modem with a single carrier data signal is shown to be less than optimal does not vitiate the fact that it is disclosed.”). See Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(claimed composition that expressly excluded an ingredient held anticipated by reference composition that optionally included that same ingredient); see also Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1948 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Claimed composition was anticipated by prior art reference that inherently met claim limitation of “sufficient aeration” even though reference taught away from air entrapment or purposeful aeration.).
As to the feature “wherein the edge ring is configured such that the first surface is most exposed to the plasma. . “, these are intended use features.
As to the peak intensity features, Forrest describes the same product (SiC made by a CVD process, such as in Fig. 16d, para. 91), therefore, since Forrest describes making the same product the same way, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same process would produce the same.
The references do not describe the thermal conductivity.
Pickering describes a method of making SiC using CVD (abstract). The reference explains that thermal conductivity is strongly dependent on the grain size and purity of the SiC (page 3, last line). That is, the thermal conductivity increases with increasing grain size and low impurity concentration along the grain boundaries (pg. 3, last line and pg. 4, line 1). Therefore, the thermal conductivity is controlled by deposition temperature, pressure and gas flow rates (pg 4, lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thermal conductivity values, as taught by Pickering for use with the product of Forrest by altering the grain size and impurity concentration.
As to the specific value of the thermal conductivity, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as thermal conductivity through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to the direction dependence of the thermal conductivity of the SiC, Ohta describes a material with excellent thermal conduction performance used in electronic components (para. 2). The reference explains that this includes thermally conductive filler material that can be silicon carbide (para. 20). Ohta explains in the background art that thermal conduction performance is enhanced by orientating thermally conductive fibers in the direction of the thermal conduction (para. 3). As a result, Ohta teaches in their invention that at least part of the thermally conductive filler is oriented in a certain direction (para. 9), which then gives the thermal conductivity in the direction of orientation of the thermally conductive filler (para. 23, for example when the filler is oriented in the thickness direction, the thermal conductivity of the material is based on the width direction of the body and para. 24, the thermal conductivity is based on the orientation direction of the filler).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to orient the grains of Forrest and Pickering in the direction where thermal conductivity is greatest, as taught by Ohta because Ohta explains that fillers with excellent thermal conduction performance is desirable for use in electronics.
As to Claim 30, the shape of the product in Forrest (see Fig. 5, 13) can be considered an edge ring.
As to Claim 31, since the grains have a long direction perpendicular to the plane of the finished part in Forrest (para. 20, 44 and Fig. 5), then It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the short direction has a smaller area than the long direction. Further, since the grain is elongated and perpendicular to the plane, this meets the configurations of Claim 31. As to the features describing how the product is developed, these are product-by-process features.
As to Claim 34, Forrest teaches that in the prior art, the grains have their long direction oriented perpendicular to the plane of the finished part (para. 20, 44 and Fig. 5, para. 52 and Fig. 13). Although Forrest does not specifically state that “the crystal grains are aligned so as to have a maximum length in -45° to +45° direction”, since Forrest states that their grains are perpendicular to the plane, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that some of the grains that are deposited perpendicular to the plane fall within the range of -45° to +45° direction.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest, Pickering and Ohta as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Pickering (EP 0582444).
The references do not describe the thermal conductivity.
Pickering describes a method of making SiC using CVD (abstract). The reference explains that thermal conductivity is strongly dependent on the grain size and purity of the SiC (page 3, last line). That is, the thermal conductivity increases with increasing grain size and low impurity concentration along the grain boundaries (pg. 3, last line and pg. 4, line 1). Therefore, the thermal conductivity is controlled by deposition temperature, pressure and gas flow rates (pg 4, lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thermal conductivity values, as taught by Pickering for use with the product of Forrest, Pickering and Ohta by altering the grain size and impurity concentration.
As to the specific value of the thermal conductivity, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as thermal conductivity through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest, Pickering and Ohta as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Nishiguchi (CA 2761428).
The references do not describe a change in properties based on the direction of the SiC.
Nishiguchi describes a silicon carbide substrate (abstract). The reference explains that when the impurity concentration is adjusted to within a certain range, the resistivity in the direction of thickness can be lowered (page 19, lines 6-9). Lowering the resistivity is preferred when used in semiconductor device and facilitates higher breakdown voltage (page 1, lines 14- 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the impurity concentration in order to alter the resistivity in the thickness direction of the SiC, as taught by Nishiguchi for use with the SiC of Forrest, Pickering and Ohta because this method of altering resistivity is known to facilitates higher breakdown voltage.
Claim(s) 34, 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest, Pickering and Ohta as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Ou (JP 2002256435).
The references do not disclose the alignment (Claim 34) or the aspect ratio (Claim 35).
Ou describes a silicon carbide (title) made by CVD (para. 4). The material that when the grains are perpendicular to the substrate in an amount of 30 ° from the direction perpendicular to the substrate plane and have an aspect ratio of 3 or more because this combination of features improves the surface smoothness after various processing (page 3, lines 18-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to align the grains to within 30° perpendicular to the substrate plan and have an aspect ratio of 3 or more, as taught by Ou for use with the SiC of Forrest, Pickering and Ohta because these conditions improve the surface smoothness.
Claim(s) 36, 37, 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest, Pickering and Ou or Forrest and Pickering and Ohta as applied to claims 35 or 22 above, and further in view of Nakano (US Pat.: 9337257).
The references do not disclose that the strength in one direction differs from the average strength in the other direction.
Nakano describes a semiconductor device (title) that comprises a SiC material (abstract). The reference explains that the dielectric breakdown strength of the SiC dpends on the plane direction of the SiC (col. 2, lines 58-65). The reason the strength on one end differs from the other is because even when the electric field of equal magnitude is added, the SiC is difficult to break on the <0001> plane, while the other end is easier to be broken (col. 2, line 67). In this case, it is possible to decrease a contact resistance of the electrode, which prevents excessive heat generation and prevents thermal breakdown (col. 9, lines 15-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have different strengths on the different planes of the SiC, as taught by Nakano for use with the SiC of Forrest, Pickering and Ou or Forrest and Pickering because it can be used to decrease the contact resistance of the electrode and prevent excessive heat generation and prevents thermal breakdown.
Nakano does not teach that the average strength in the first direction is 133-200 Mpa and the average strength in the second direction is 225 to 260 MPa. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize this feature in order to adjust the decreased contact resistance to the desired level of the user.
As to Claim 46, Ou describes that the substrate plane and have an aspect ratio of 3 or more because this combination of features improves the surface smoothness after various processing (page 3, lines 18-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the aspect ratio of 3 or more, as taught by Ou for use with the SiC of Forrest, Pickering and Ou or Forrest and Pickering and Ohta because these conditions improve the surface smoothness.
Claim(s) 38, 39, 40, 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest, Pickering and Ohta as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Nagasawa (EP 1179620).
The specification of this application explains that to make the SiC product, the product is formed using a CVD process (PG Pub. of the current specification, para. 0166). The material is also doped using a dopant in an amount of 1x1018 atoms/cc or less, which then reduces the resistivity of the SiC product (PG Pub of current Application, para. 0122). As a result of the process of making, the specification states that the resistivity in the first and second direction are formed (PG Pub, para. 0107).
Nagasawa describes a silicon carbide product and process of making (title). The method of making the product involves epitaxially growing a thin film using CVD (para. 21). The SiC is doped during formation (para. 21). The dopant is added to the SiC material in an amount of 1x1013/cm3 to 1x1021/cm3 (para. 27).
By adding impurities as dopants in this way, Nagasawa explains that this decreases the on-resistance (para. 4), while balancing the consideration of breakdown voltage of the semiconductor (para. 5).
Forrest also describes doping the SiC with nitrogen (para. 113).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the nitrogen dopant to the SiC in an amount of 1x1013/cm3 to 1x1021/cm3, as taught by Nagasawa for use with the nitrogen-doped SiC of Forrest, Pickering and Ohta because Nagasawa explains that by adding dopants in this amount, certain qualities of the SiC semiconductor are preferentially optimized.
Furthermore, since the disclosure of this application states that their process dopes using a dopant in an amount of 1x1018 atoms/cc or less, and the process of Forrest and Pickering, Ohta and Nagsawa add the same kind of dopant in the same amounts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same process used the same way with the same amounts of the compounds would reduce the resistivity to the desired range, particularly to where the resistivity of the first direction/second direction is 0.04-0.99 (Claim 12), the resistivity in the first direction is 1.8 to 3Ωcm a second direction of 0.8-1.7 Ωcm (Claim 13), the resistivity in the first direction/second direction 1.15 to 3.2 (Claim 14), the resistivity in the first direction is 3 x 10-3 Ωcm to 5 x 10-3 Ωcm and a resistivity in the second direction of 1.4 x 10-3 Ωcm to 3 x 10-3 Ωcm (Claim 15).
Therefore, use of the same amount of dopants in the same amounts would result in the same resistivity ranges claimed.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same process would produce the same.
See MPEP section 2112.01(II): COMPOSITION CLAIMS — IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
: "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. (Applicant argued that the claimed composition was a pressure sensitive adhesive containing a tacky polymer while the product of the reference was hard and abrasion resistant. "The Board correctly found that the virtual identity of monomers and procedures sufficed to support a prima facie case of unpatentability of Spada’s polymer latexes for lack of novelty."). See MPEP section 2112.01 (II).
Claim(s) 42, 43, 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest, Pickering and Nagasawa or Forrest and Pickering and Ohta as applied to claims 41 or 22 above, and evidenced by YAFIT, attached.
The references do not teach the hardness of the SiC.
Yafit explains that the Vicker’s hardness of the SiC material is from 2800-3200 HV (see “Vickers Hardness”.
Therefore, the same composition used has the same hardness level.
As to Claim 43, the hardness range of Claim 43 can be 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the thickness of the composition in order to adjust the hardness.
As to Claim 44, Forrest describes the same product (SiC made by a CVD process, such as in Fig. 16d, para. 91), therefore, since Forrest and Pickering describes making the same product the same way, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same process would produce the same.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fung Coris can be reached at 571-270-5713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 October 3, 2025