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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 6-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references/or references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, the Applicant has amended the claims to add a convex counterbored portion, such that the scope of the claims has changed, thus requiring further search and consideration. The resulting rejection, based on United States Patent Application No. 2006/0065196 to Yokogawa in view of in view of United States Patent Application No. 2005/0064247 to Sane et al and United States Patent Application No. 2002/0088389 to Kommu et al is presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2006/0065196 to Yokogawa in view of in view of United States Patent Application No. 2005/0064247 to Sane et al and United States Patent Application No. 2002/0088389 to Kommu et al.
In regards to Claim 1, Yokogawa teaches a susceptor 1 Fig. 1, 2 comprising a substrate 2 comprising a carbon material [0035] and having one main surface (top of 1) which has a counterbored portion (recess 3) and on which a silicon wafer W is to be placed, and another main surface (bottom of 1) facing the one main surface, wherein all surfaces of the substrate are directly covered with a thin film 4 comprising silicon carbide [0035] (and as generally shown in Fig. 1, 2), and the counterbored portion is curved so as to be convex toward the another main surface, as shown in Fig. 1, 2 [0033-0078].
Yokogawa does not expressly teach the one main surface has an emissivity variation of 3% or less or a ratio of an average emissivity between the one main surface and the other main surface facing the one main surface is from 1:1 to 1:0.8.
Sane teaches a metal carbide coating of silicon carbide that is used for semi-conductor processing components which has little emissivity sensitivity, such that the coating is insensitive, which means the emissivity varies little over a wavelength range of 600-950 nm, and has a variance of less than 5% [0054]; as variance in coating emissivity making accurate temperature control very difficult [0007], and that coating uniformity, high emissivity at high temperatures, and high corrosion resistance reduces emissivity variation such that temperature control is easier as the coating is stabilized and has stable optical emissivity ([0031; 0025-0054]; Claims 1-20).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the SiC coating of Yokogawa to have the SiC coating emissivity properties of Sane, which expressly teaches an emissivity that is stable and varies/emissivity variability of less than 5%, a range that overlaps the claimed range of 3% or less. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of improving temperature control by having a more stabilized coating with a stable optical emissivity over high temperatures. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. As the teachings of Yokogawa in view of Sane expressly teach the ranges as taught are result effective variables for temperature control, such that the optimization is known within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation, with an articulated rationale supporting the rejection, changing the ranges is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
See MPEP 2144.05 II. A, B. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Yokogawa in view of Sane teaches the susceptor is graphite coated by SiC, but does not expressly show all surface of the substrate are directly covered with a thin film comprising silicon carbide, although it is suggested.
Kommu teaches a susceptor is generally comprised of high purity grade graphite with a silicon carbide layer completely covering the graphite [0014].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Yokogawa in view of Sane which suggests a complete coating of the graphite susceptor with SiC with the express teachings of a graphite susceptor that is completely covered with SiC, as per the express teachings of Kommu.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 2, Yokogawa in view of Sane and Kommu teaches the another main surface facing the one main surface has an emissivity variation of 3% or less, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 6, Yokogawa in view of Sane and Kommu teaches the thin film formed on the all surfaces of the substrate consists of only one layer comprising the silicon carbide, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 7, Yokogawa in view of Sane and Kommu teaches a recessed counterbored portion is provided at the one main surface on which the silicon wafer is to be placed, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above.
In regards to Claim 9, Yokogawa in view of Sane and Kommu teaches the one main surface has the emissivity variation of 1% or more and 3% or less, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above, wherein the range may be optimized as a result effective variable for temperature control.
In regards to Claim 10, Yokogawa teaches a susceptor 1 Fig. 1, 2 comprising a substrate 2 comprising a carbon material [0035] and having one main surface (top of 1) which has a counterbored portion (recess 3) and on which a silicon wafer W is to be placed, and another main surface (bottom of 1) facing the one main surface, wherein all surfaces of the substrate are directly covered with a thin film 4 comprising silicon carbide [0035] (and as generally shown in Fig. 1, 2), and the counterbored portion is curved so as to be convex toward the another main surface, as shown in Fig. 1, 2 [0033-0078].
Yokogawa does not expressly teach the one main surface has an emissivity variation of greater than 0% and less than 3% or a ratio of an average emissivity between the one main surface and the other main surface facing the one main surface is from 1:1 to 1:0.8.
Sane teaches a metal carbide coating of silicon carbide that is used for semi-conductor processing components which has little emissivity sensitivity, such that the coating is insensitive, which means the emissivity varies little over a wavelength range of 600-950 nm, and has a variance of less than 5% [0054]; as variance in coating emissivity making accurate temperature control very difficult [0007], and that coating uniformity, high emissivity at high temperatures, and high corrosion resistance reduces emissivity variation such that temperature control is easier as the coating is stabilized and has stable optical emissivity ([0031; 0025-0054]; Claims 1-20).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the SiC coating of Yokogawa to have the SiC coating emissivity properties of Sane, which expressly teaches an emissivity that is stable and varies/emissivity variability of less than 5%, a range that overlaps the claimed range of 3% or less and greater than 0%. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of improving temperature control by having a more stabilized coating with a stable optical emissivity over high temperatures. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. As the teachings of Yokogawa in view of Sane expressly teach the ranges as taught are result effective variables for temperature control, such that the optimization is known within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation, with an articulated rationale supporting the rejection, changing the ranges is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
See MPEP 2144.05 II. A, B. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Yokogawa in view of Sane teaches the susceptor is graphite coated by SiC, but does not expressly show all surface of the substrate are directly covered with a thin film comprising silicon carbide, although it is suggested.
Kommu teaches a susceptor is generally comprised of high purity grade graphite with a silicon carbide layer completely covering the graphite [0014].
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Yokogawa in view of Sane which suggests a complete coating of the graphite susceptor with SiC with the express teachings of a graphite susceptor that is completely covered with SiC, as per the express teachings of Kommu.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 11, Yokogawa in view of Sane and Kommu teaches the one main surface has the emissivity variation of 1% or more and 3% or less, as per the rejection of Claim 10 above, wherein the range may be optimized as a result effective variable for temperature control.
In regards to Claim 12, Yokogawa in view of Sane and Kommu do not expressly teach the thin film comprising silicon carbide is formed by a chemical vapor deposition process in which raw material gases are diluted to a concentration of 1/2 to 1/4 of a normal concentration at a final stage of a raw material gas supply process.
However, this appears to be a product by process claim, as the film formed is a product with limitations to how to create said product is described by process limitations therein. Because product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps and only the structure implied by the steps, and that there is no non-obvious difference in the resulting product in the claimed limitations, as per MPEP 2113 I + II, the teachings of Yokogawa in view of Sane and Kommu fulfill the claimed limitations.
In regards to Claim 15, Yokogawa in view of Sane and Kommu do not expressly teach wherein the emissivity variation on the one main surface is adjusted by controlling raw material gas concentrations during formation of the thin film comprising silicon carbide.
However, this appears to be a product by process claim, as the film formed is a product with limitations to how to create said product is described by process limitations therein. Because product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps and only the structure implied by the steps, and that there is no non-obvious difference in the resulting product in the claimed limitations, as per MPEP 2113 I + II, the teachings of Yokogawa in view of Sane and Kommu fulfill the claimed limitations.
In regards to Claim 18, Yokogawa teaches an average depth of the counterbored portion is a value smaller than the depth at a deepest point of the counterbored portion, as the shape of the counterbored portion is convex, which fulfills that limitation.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2006/0065196 to Yokogawa in view of in view of United States Patent Application No. 2005/0064247 to Sane et al and United States Patent Application No. 2002/0088389 to Kommu et al, as per the rejection of Claim 1 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2013/0327274 to Ohno et al.
The teachings of Yokogawa in view of Sane and Kommu are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 3, Yokogawa in view of Sane and Kommu do not expressly teach a ratio of a film thickness of the thin film formed on the another main surface to a film thickness of the thin film formed on the one main surface is 1:1, i.e., 0.7 or more and 1.2 or less, a film thickness difference between a central part and an outer edge part in the one main surface is 0% difference, 40% or less of an average film thickness value of the thin film formed on the one main surface, and a film thickness difference between a maximum film thickness and a minimum film thickness in the outer edge part of the one main surface is 40% or less of the average film thickness value of the thin film formed on the one main surface, as a constant emissivity would have a film thickness that is the same all around the susceptor.
Ohno teaches a susceptor Fig. 4 comprising a substrate 14 comprising a carbon material (made out of graphite, [0021]) and having one main surface 14a on which a silicon wafer is to be placed (top surface, [0021]), and another main surface facing the one main surface (bottom surface of 14), wherein an entire surface of the substrate is covered with a thin film 16 comprising silicon carbide [0022], the thickness of the silicon carbide coating being 100 µm [0021-0039].
Ohno teaches wherein a ratio of a film thickness of the thin film 16 formed on the another main surface to a film thickness of the thin film formed on the one main surface is 0.7 or more and 1.2 or less, as the film thickness is the same on both the top and bottom surfaces, as it is the same all around the susceptor, as generally shown in Fig. 4 of Ohno, and a film thickness difference between a central part and an outer edge part in the one main surface is 40% or less of an average film thickness value of the thin film formed on the one main surface, as it is the same all around the susceptor, as generally shown in Fig. 4 of Ohno, and a film thickness difference between the maximum film thickness and the minimum film thickness in the outer edge part of the one main surface is 40% or less of the average film thickness value of the thin film formed on the one main surface, as it is the same all around the susceptor, as generally shown in Fig. 4 of Ohno.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Yokogawa in view of Sane and Kommu, which suggests a uniform or same thickness coating, as expressly shown in the silicon carbide coating 16 in Fig. 4 of Ohno, as per the analogous teachings of Ohno, as a known thickness for a coating of SiC on a graphite body of a susceptor. It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
In regards to Claim 4, Yokogawa in view of Sane and Kommu does not expressly teach a film thickness of the thin film comprising silicon carbide formed on all surfaces of the substrate is at least 60 µm.
Ohno expressly teaches that the SiC film of 16 has a thickness of 100µm.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the apparatus of Yokogawa in view of Sane and Kommu, to make the SiC coating of a susceptor 100µm, as per the analogous teachings of Ohno, as a known thickness for a coating of SiC on a graphite body of a susceptor. It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claims 8 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2006/0065196 to Yokogawa in view of in view of United States Patent Application No. 2005/0064247 to Sane et al and United States Patent Application No. 2002/0088389 to Kommu et al, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2016/0201219 to Corea et al.
The teachings of Yokogawa in view of Sane and Kommu are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claims 16-17, Yokogawa in view of Sane and Kommu does not expressly teach a ratio of a thickness of the susceptor to a depth at a deepest point of the counterbored portion is from 3 to 13, 6 to 30, as they are silent to the thickness of the susceptor and the depth of the pocket.
Corea teaches a susceptor 20 Fig. 2 that houses multiple substrates [0136] and has set of dimensions such that it has a thickness of 5-10 mm and recess depths of 1-4 mm, such that the ratio a ratio of a thickness of the susceptor to a depth at a deepest point of the counterbored portion is from 5:1 to 10:1 [0051; 0041-0095].
As it is known to make a susceptor have pockets/recesses with a depth of 1-4 mm in a 5-10 mm thick susceptor, as taught by Corea, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Yokogawa in view of Sane and Kommu (which are silent to the relative dimensions) to have those dimensions One would be motivated to do so in order to make a susceptor in the size well known in the prior art. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationales A. The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2006/0065196 to Yokogawa in view of in view of United States Patent Application No. 2005/0064247 to Sane et al and United States Patent Application No. 2002/0088389 to Kommu et al, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of United States Patent Application No. 2021/0040643 to Sakaguchi et al.
The teachings of Yokogawa in view of Sane and Kommu are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 13. Yokogawa teaches the susceptor is has a plurality of substrate support positions, which is known to be rotated in the art, but does not expressly teach the substrate is rotated during formation of the thin film comprising silicon carbide while support positions with respect to the substrate are not fixed, such that the thin film is formed with enhanced film thickness uniformity.
Sakaguchi teaches a susceptor 10 Fig. 1, 2, wherein the susceptor is rotated around a central access [0033] such that the substrate is rotated during epitaxial layer growth, i.e.; formation of the thin film comprising silicon carbide [0033], while support positions with respect to the substrate are not fixed as it rotates around a central access [0032-0059].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the susceptor of Yokogawa in view of Sane and Kommu by making it rotate around a central axis, as per the teachings of Sakaguchi. As it is known to provide a susceptor a rotational means, as taught by Sakaguchi, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the susceptor as taught by Yokogawa in view of Sane and Kommu to include rotation around the central axis. One would be motivated to do so in order to provide known rotational movement. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationales A.
Yokogawa in view of Sane and Kommu and in further view of Sakaguchi do not expressly teach the thin film is formed with enhanced film thickness uniformity.
However, this is a functional limitation for the processing of the substrate to create a thin film with enhanced film thickness uniformity. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2115. As the apparatus of Yokogawa in view of Sane and Kommu and in further view of Sakaguchi is substantially the same as the claimed apparatus, the apparatus of Yokogawa in view of Sane and Kommu and in further view of Sakaguchi would be capable of fulfilling the limitations of the claim and thus be able to form the thin film with enhanced film thickness, there being no structural difference between the apparatus of Yokogawa in view of Sane and Kommu and in further view of Sakaguchi and that of the claim.
The resulting apparatus fulfills the limitations of the claim.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application No. 2006/0065196 to Yokogawa in view of in view of United States Patent Application No. 2005/0064247 to Sane et al and United States Patent Application No. 2002/0088389 to Kommu et al, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of WO2020/213847 to Lee. United States Patent Application No. 2022/0148907 to Lee is relied upon as the English language equivalent thereof.
The teachings of Yokogawa in view of Sane and Kommu are relied upon as set forth in the above 103 rejection.
In regards to Claim 14, Yokogawa in view of Sane and Kommu does not expressly teach the thin film comprising silicon carbide has crystal grains that are uniform in size due to deposition at a predetermined deposition rate.
Yokogawa teaches that the SiC is formed by epitaxial grain growth or thin film deposition [0036-0046], but does not expressly teach that the crystal grains are uniform in size due to deposition at a predetermined deposition rate.
Lee teaches a SiC coating material suitable for a semiconductor/plasma processing apparatus material part [0013] which creates a SiC layer that has an average crystal grain size of 0.5 μm to 3.5 μm [0038], which is inherently uniform, as broadly recited, and also creates a uniform temperature distribution, the grain size being adjusted by adjusting the growth rate [0037; 0032-0065].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the material of the SiC thin film of Yokogawa in view of Sane and Kommu with the teachings of Lee, which expressly teaches a uniform grain size of a SiC layer is created by controlling the growth rate of the SiC layer. One would be motivated to do so for the predictable result of creating a uniform temperature distribution through the layer. See MPEP 2143 Motivation A.
The Examiner notes that the limitation of having “the crystal grains are uniform in size due to deposition at a predetermined deposition rate” is considered a product by process limitation. Although Lee teaches the process and the product and gives a specific average, aka, a uniformity in grain size, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps and only the structure implied by the steps, and that there is no non-obvious difference in the resulting product in the claimed limitations, as per MPEP 2113 I + II, the teachings of Yokogawa in view of Sane and Kommu and Lee fulfill the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. 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.
/TIFFANY Z NUCKOLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716