Ex Parte Hogle et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 11, 2014

11899854 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2014)

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.
11/899,854 09/07/2007 Richard Allen Hogle M06A232 9178
20411 7590 09/11/2014
The BOC Group, Inc.
575 MOUNTAIN AVENUE
MURRAY HILL, NJ 07974-2082
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, NGOC YEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1734
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/11/2014 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RICHARD ALLEN HOGLE,
CE MA, DENNIS PRECOURT, and WALTER HUGH WHITLOCK
____________

Appeal 2012-012360
Application 11/899,854
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHARLES F. WARREN, and
TERRY J. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1 and 3-16 as unpatentable
over Vininski (US 2006/0086247 A1, pub. Apr. 27, 2006) in view of Salim
(US 6,103,212, issued Aug. 15, 2000) and of claims 1-16 as unpatentable
over these references in combination with Kikuyama (US 2003/0091498 A1,
pub. May 15, 2003). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
Appellants claim a method for separating transition metal impurities
from tungsten hexafluoride gas comprising introducing the gas into a vessel
containing a carbonaceous material and adsorbing the transition metal
impurities on the carbonaceous material (independent claims 1 and 16).
Appeal 2012-012360
Application 11/899,854

2
A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A method for purifying tungsten hexafluoride gas containing
transition metal compound impurities comprising:
separating the transition metal impurities from the tungsten
hexafluoride gas by:
introducing a starting tungsten hexafluoride gas stream to a
closed vessel containing a carbonaceous material;
absorbing the transition metal compound impurities on the
carbonaceous material at a temperature that allows tungsten hexafluoride gas
to pass through the closed vessel; and
collecting tungsten hexafluoride gas that passes through the
closed vessel.

Appellants do not present separate arguments specifically directed to
claims 2-15 which depend ultimately from claim 1 (Br. 10-14). Therefore,
these dependent claims as well as independent claim 16 will stand or fall
with representative independent claim 1.
We sustain the above rejections based on the findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments well expressed by the
Examiner in the Final Action and in the Answer. The following comments
are added for emphasis.
The Examiner finds that Vininski teaches or would have suggested
purifying tungsten hexafluoride by introducing it into a vessel containing
carbonaceous material (i.e., carbon) at a temperature higher than the melting
point (i.e., 275.45°K) when the tungsten hexafluoride is a liquid and higher
than the boiling point (i.e., 290.25°K) when the tungsten hexafluoride is a
gas (Final Action 3). In light of these findings, the Examiner concludes that
Appeal 2012-012360
Application 11/899,854

3
it would have been obvious to purify tungsten hexafluoride gas in
accordance with the teachings of Vininski at temperatures within Appellants'
range of 275°K to 500°K (see, e.g., non-argued dependent claim 7) (id.).
In addition, the Examiner finds that Vininski fails to disclose the
impurities in the tungsten hexafluoride gas include transition metal
impurities (id. at 4) but finds that Vininski's tungsten hexafluoride gas
necessarily would contain transition metal impurities as evidenced by Salim
and that such impurities would be removed inherently in the Vininski
process (id.).1
In contesting the Examiner's above conclusion that it would have been
obvious to operate Vininski's purification process at temperatures within the
range of 275°K to 500°K, Appellants argue that "Vininski specifically
requires that the temperature range be between 0 and -200°C (e.g. 273 to
73°K) which is not within nor overlaps with the temperature range of the
present invention" (Br. 12).
We fully agree with the Examiner that Appellants' argument is not
persuasive for a number of reasons.
First, as correctly stated by the Examiner, "claim 1 does not require
any temperature" (Ans. 11), and therefore the argument is apparently not
germane to patentability of this claim. In addition, we share the Examiner's
determination that Vininski does not require a temperature range between 0
and -200°C as argued by Appellants. According to the Examiner, Vininski

1 These findings regarding transition metal impurities have not been
challenged by Appellants in the record of this appeal.
Appeal 2012-012360
Application 11/899,854

4
discloses a range of "about 0 to -200°C" (Vininski claim 20, emphasis
added), and "about" 0°C (i.e., 273.15°K) would have suggested the 275°K
temperature recited in non-argued dependent claim 7 (id.). The Examiner
also finds that Vininski discloses "[i]n some cases, the operating or purifying
temperature may be any temperature below ambient temperature" (Vininski
para. 30), thereby suggesting any temperature below 298.15°K (id. at 8).
Finally, the Examiner finds that Vininski discloses "the operating
temperature is preferably kept above the condensation point" (Vininski para.
28) and that the condensation point of tungsten hexafluoride would be the
same as its boiling point of 290.25°K (i.e., within the temperature range of
non-argued dependent claim 7) (id.).
None of the Examiner's above findings and determinations have been
contested by Appellants in the record of this appeal (i.e., no Reply Brief has
been filed). Under these circumstances, Appellants' argument fails to reveal
error in the rejection of representative claim 1.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
AFFIRMED

cam