Ex Parte GiljeDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 26, 201713659417 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/659,417 10/24/2012 S Scott Gilje NGC-356 DIV 5735 32205 7590 05/31/2017 Patti & Malvone Law Group, LLC One North LaSalle St., 44th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 EXAMINER KREUTZER, COLIN WRIGHT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2882 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/31/2017 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): info @ pattimalvonelg .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte S. SCOTT GILJE Appeal 2016-003654 Application 13/659,417 Technology Center 2800 Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, DONNA M. PRAISS, and MERRELL C. CASHION JR., Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-003654 Application 13/659,417 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the non-final Rejection of claims 15, 17, 19-25, and 27. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appellant’s invention is directed to an apparatus for producing graphene from graphene oxide by using a light source (Spec. 11; claim 15). Claim 15 is illustrative: 15. An apparatus, comprising: a porous graphene oxide (GO) target; a light source directed at the GO target; wherein the light source is configured to emit a light pulse, directed at the porous GO target, with sufficient power to initiate a deoxygenation reaction in the porous GO target to transform the porous GO target to graphene. Appellant appeals the following rejections: 1. Claims 15, 17, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Huang (US 2010/0221508 Al; Sept. 2, 2010) in view of Wang (US 2010/0144904 Al; June 10, 2010). 2. Claims 19, 24, 25, and 27 are rejected 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Huang. Appellant argues claims 15, 23, and 27 only (App. Br. 6—9). The rejection of dependent claims not separately argued will stand or fall with our analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 27. 2 Appeal 2016-003654 Application 13/659,417 FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS REJECTION (1): Claims 15 and 23 The Examiner finds that Huang teaches treating graphene oxide films with a light source to produce graphene as recited in claim 15, except that Huang does not teach to use a porous graphene oxide target (claim 15) having a density between 5 mg/ml and 15 mg/ml (claim 23) (Ans. 2—3). The Examiner finds that Wang teaches converting porous graphene oxide aerogels having a density from 1 mg/ml to 20 mg/ml to graphene for use in making sensors, thermoelectric devices, super capacitors, etc. {id. at 3). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to use Wang’s porous graphene oxide material as the graphene oxide target in Huang because Huang and Wang are each directed to making graphene for use in electrical applications such as sensors, thermoelectric devices, and super capacitors {id.). Appellant argues that it would not have been obvious to combine the teachings of Huang and Wang without the benefit of impermissible hindsight (Br. 6). Appellant contends that there is no teaching in either reference of reducing a porous graphene oxide using a light pulse as claimed by Appellant {id. at 7). Appellant argues that porous means that the density of the graphene oxide is between 5 mg/ml and 15 mg/ml as recited in claim 23 {id. at 7, 8). Appellant contends that the graphene oxide density is critical to achieve the self-propagating reduction of the graphene oxide(/<7). Appellant further argues that the Examiner’s rationale for combining Huang’s and Wang’s teachings based upon the similarity of end use is not motivation for making the combination {id. at 7). 3 Appeal 2016-003654 Application 13/659,417 Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because they attack the references individually instead of addressing what the combined teachings of Huang and Wang would have suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan. Wang teaches that it is desirable to use porous graphene oxide aerogels that are strong and electrically conducting (Wang 111). The Examiner finds Wang and Huang are manufacturing graphene materials for use in making electrical devices (Ans. 3). While Appellant argues Wang teaches using a conventional heat treatment to convert the graphene oxide aerogels into graphene (Br. 6—7; Wang 122), Huang teaches the use of light treatment provides an improvement over the conventional way of converting graphene oxide to graphene (Huang | 5). In other words, the motivation for using Huang’s light treatment apparatus to convert Wang’s porous graphene oxide is based on the improvement provided by using Huang’s process to convert the graphene oxide in forming materials for use in electrical applications. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to use Huang’s improved process of converting graphene oxide to graphene to convert Wang’s graphene oxide to graphene because Wang’s graphene oxide is suitable for use in making electrical devices. With regard to the alleged criticality of the graphene density, the Examiner finds that Wang teaches a range of graphene densities that encompasses the claimed range. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding. Appellant may argue that the densities are critical, but Appellant does not argue that the densities yield unexpected results. Although Appellant alleges that graphene oxide targets at densities less than 5 mg/ml and greater than 50 mg/ml do not result in the desired reaction to convert the graphene oxide target to graphene, Appellant does not dispute that Wang 4 Appeal 2016-003654 Application 13/659,417 teaches a density range for the graphene oxide that encompasses the claimed density range. On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 15, 17, and 20—23 over Huang in view of Wang. REJECTION (2): Claim 27 Appellant argues that Huang does not teach enhancing deoxygenation by adding a catalytic metal for oxygen scavenging and, thus, would not have suggested claim 27 (Br. 9). Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because it fails to address the Examiner’s official notice that silicon is a well-known substrate material used in conventional photolithography (Ans. 5,9). The Examiner finds that Huang teaches using a substrate but does not teach the material used as the substrate {id. at 9). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to use silicon as the material for Huang’s substrate because silicon is a well-known and widely used substrate material {id.). There is no dispute that silicon is a catalytic metal within the meaning of the claim as construed in light of the Specification {See Spec. Tflf 24, 26). On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 19, 24, 25, and 27 over Huang. DECISION The Examiner’s decision 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 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation