Ex Parte VeerasamyDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 27, 201812461346 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/461,346 08/07/2009 23117 7590 05/01/2018 NIXON & V ANDERHYE, PC 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Vijayen S. Veerasamy 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. JAR-3691-1757 2005 EXAMINER MCCRACKEN, DANIEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1736 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/01/2018 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): PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com pair_nixon@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte VIJA YEN S. VEERASAMY Appeal2017-001921 Application 12/461,346 1 Technology Center 1700 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, GEORGE C. BEST, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-18 and 21-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellant is the Guardian Industries Corp., which according to the Appeal Brief, is also the real party in interest. See App. Br. 3. Appeal2017-001921 Application 12/461,346 The invention relates generally to a method of making a graphene thin film. Independent claim 1 is representative of the appealed subject matter and is reproduced below: 1. A method of making a graphene thin film, the method compnsmg: providing a back support substrate; disposing a catalyst thin film, directly or indirectly, on the back support substrate; introducing a hydrocarbon inclusive gas proximate to the catalyst thin film; heating the back support substrate to cause the hydrocarbon inclusive gas to at least partially separate the carbon in the hydrocarbon inclusive gas and promote graphene growth in and/or on the catalyst thin film; and actively cooling the back support substrate to promote crystallization of graphene, directly or indirectly, on an outermost surface of the catalyst thin film, in making the graphene thin film, said active cooling being performed in connection with an inert gas and in accordance with a cooling temperature profile that, as a whole, is non-constant, non- uniform, and non-linear in speed, and cools the back substrate from 900 degrees C to 700 degrees C. Claims Appendix to App. Br. 34. Appellant (see App. Br., generally) requests review of the following rejections: I. Claims 1-18 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. 2 Appeal2017-001921 Application 12/461,346 II. Claims 1-18 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. III. Claims 1-15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. IV. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph, as failing to further limit the subject matter of claim 1. V. Claims 1--4, 6-11, 15 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Choi2 KR 10-2009-0065206 (6/22/2009) in view of (i) Yu, et al., Graphene segregated on Ni surfaces and transferred to insulators, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2008; 93: 113103-1 to 113103-3 (hereinafter "Yu") and (ii) Other differential equations Newton's Law of Cooling, accessed online at: http://www.ugrad.math.ubc.ca/coursedoc/ mathlOO/ notes/diffeqs/cool.html on 24 September 2014 (hereinafter "Newton"). VI. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Choi, Yu, Newton and Datta et al., Crystallographic Etching of Few- Layer Graphene, Nano Lett. 2008; 8(7): 1912-1915 (hereinafter "Datta"). VII. Claims 5, 21, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Choi, Yu, Newton and Oya et al., Review: Phenomena 2 The Examiner relies on US 2009/0155561 (6/18/2009) as an English- language equivalent to Choi, KR 10-2009-0065206. 3 Appeal2017-001921 Application 12/461,346 of catalytic graphitization, J. Materials Sci. 1982; 17: 309- 3 22 (hereinafter "Oya"). The complete statement of the rejections on appeal appear in the Final Office Action. (Final Act. 2-54). OPINION After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the Examiner for each of the appealed rejections, we conclude that the preponderance of the evidence supports Appellant's position that the Examiner has not established the unpatentability of the rejected claims. We adopt Appellant's reasoning as our own. (App. Br. 7-32; Reply Br. 2-3). Accordingly, we reverse the appealed rejections. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation