KOTLER, Zvi et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 3, 201913958043 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 2019) 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. 13/958,043 08/02/2013 Zvi KOTLER Q206118 8464 23373 7590 09/03/2019 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC 2000 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 900 WASHINGTON, DC 20006 EXAMINER PHAN, THIEM D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3729 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/03/2019 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): PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM USPTO@sughrue.com sughrue@sughrue.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ZVI KOTLER and MICHAEL ZENOU ____________ Appeal 2019-005098 Application 13/958,0431 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, BEVERLY M. BUNTING, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–11. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 “The real party in interest is Orbotech Ltd., of Yavne, Israel.” Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-005098 Application 13/958,043 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Subject Matter on Appeal The Appellants’ “invention relates to electrical circuit manufacturing and repair generally” and more specifically, “seeks to provide an improved method of producing a conductive path on a substrate.” Spec. ¶¶ 1, 3. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below. 1. A method of producing a conductive path on a substrate comprising: depositing on said substrate a layer of material having a thickness in the range of 0.1 to 5 microns, including metal particles having a diameter in the range of 10 to 100 nanometers; employing a patterning laser beam to selectably sinter regions of said layer of material, thereby causing said metal particles to together define a conductor at sintered regions; and employing an ablating laser beam, below a threshold at which said sintered regions would be ablated, to ablate portions of said layer of material other than at said sintered regions. Rejections Claims 1–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sakai et al. (US 6,875,952 B2, iss. Apr. 5, 2005) (hereinafter “Sakai”) and Shiraishi et al. (US 8,071,888 B2, iss. Dec. 6, 2011) (hereinafter “Shiraishi”). Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sakai, Shiraishi, and Addiego et al. (US 5,164,565, iss. Nov. 17, 1992) (hereinafter “Addiego”). Appeal 2019-005098 Application 13/958,043 3 ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 recites “employing a patterning laser beam to selectably sinter regions of said layer of material, thereby causing said metal particles to together define a conductor at sintered regions” and “employing an ablating laser beam, below a threshold at which said sintered regions would be ablated, to ablate portions of said layer of material other than at said sintered regions.” Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphases added). The Appellants construe these claim recitations to require “some sintered regions, and some non-sintered regions.” Reply Br. 6. We agree with the Appellants’ construction because the plain language of the claim requires a choice in preference to sinter some regions of the layer of material and ablate portions of the layer of material at non-sintered regions. See Select Definition 3, DICTIONARY.COM, https://www.dictionary.com/ browse/select (last visited Aug. 29, 2019) (“chosen in preference to another or others; selected”). Further, the Appellants argue Sakai fails to teach this claim requirement. Appeal Br. 8–9; see Reply Br. 5–6. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 relies on a finding that Sakai teaches employing laser 5a at different thresholds to irradiate paste 1 into repaired metallic pattern 1a, thereby selectably sintering regions of said layer of material without affecting a non-desired portion. See Ans. 8 (citing Sakai, Figs. 1B, 4, col. 6, ll. 11–15); Final Act. 3 (citing Sakai, Fig. 1C). Sakai’s Figures 1A, 1B, and 1C are reproduced below: Appeal 2019-005098 Application 13/958,043 4 Sakai’s Figures 1A, 1B, and 1C “show steps of a method for repairing an electrode.” Sakai, col. 4, ll. 37–38. Sakai’s Figure 4 is reproduced below: Sakai’s Figure 4 shows “a profile showing a relationship between time and output in a baking process,” where “the horizontal axis designates time and the vertical axis designates laser output per unit area.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 43– 44, col. 6, ll. 18–19. The Appellants point out that Sakai teaches all of paste 1 being heated. Reply Br. 5–6 (citing Sakai, col. 6, ll. 9–14); see, e.g., Sakai, Figs. 1A–1C. The Appellants argue that a proper construction of the claim limitation “employing a patterning laser beam to selectably sinter regions of said layer of material” does not read on Sakai’s teaching of employing laser Appeal 2019-005098 Application 13/958,043 5 5a to irradiate all of paste 1 into repaired metallic pattern 1a. See Reply Br. 5–6. The Appellants’ argument is persuasive. In this case, the Examiner fails to explain –– and we fail to understand –– how Sakai teaches applying laser 5a to some regions of paste 1 and not applying laser 5a to other regions of paste 1. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–10 as unpatentable over Sakai in view of Shiraishi. Additionally, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 based on Sakai and Shiraishi in combination with Addiego relies on the same erroneous finding discussed above. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 11 as unpatentable over Sakai, Shiraishi, and Addiego. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–11. REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation