Ex Parte Hogle et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 11, 201411899854 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2014) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation