2020005043 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2021)

ZEON CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 25, 2021

2020005043 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2021)

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. 15/322,133 12/26/2016 Hideo KOGURE 16P0146 7627 128976 7590 08/25/2021 KENJA IP LAW PC 4 North Second Street, Suite 598 San Jose, CA 95113 EXAMINER TRINH, THANH TRUC ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1726 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/25/2021 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): admin@kenjaip.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte HIDEO KOGURE, KOUSUKE AOYAMA, SHINZO KISHIMOTO, and MASASHI IKEGAMI ____________ Appeal 2020-005043 Application 15/322,133 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 5.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Zeon Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Claims 6–9 are withdrawn. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2020-005043 Application 15/322,133 2 BACKGROUND The invention relates to nanoparticle-containing dispersion liquids such as may be used in forming semiconductor films for photocatalysts, electronic devices, or solar cells. Spec. ¶¶ 1–9. Claim 1 reads: 1. A viscous dispersion liquid comprising: a dispersion medium including water in a proportion of 95% by mass or more; and titanium dioxide nanoparticles, wherein the viscous dispersion liquid has a solid content concentration of 30% by mass to 60% by mass, the titanium dioxide nanoparticles include anatase crystalline titanium dioxide nanoparticles having an average particle diameter of 10 nm to 100 nm, and brookite crystalline titanium dioxide nanoparticles having an average particle diameter of 5 nm to 15 nm, a proportion of anatase crystalline titanium dioxide nanoparticles in the viscous dispersion liquid relative to a total of the anatase crystalline titanium dioxide nanoparticles and brookite crystalline titanium dioxide nanoparticles is 60% by mass or more, and the viscous dispersion liquid has a viscosity of 10 Pa·s to 500 Pa·s at 25°C. Appeal Br. 13 (Claims Appendix). Claim 5 depends from claim 1. REJECTION Claims 1 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kayama3 and Miyasaka.4 3 US 2009/0014062 A1, published January 15, 2009. 4 US 2008/0234395 A1, published September 25, 2008. Appeal 2020-005043 Application 15/322,133 3 OPINION Claim 1 Relevant to Appellant’s arguments on appeal, the Examiner finds Kayama discloses a dispersion medium comprising anatase and brookite titanium dioxide particles including a first group of particles (Group C) having a diameter of 20 nm or more and a second group of particles (Group D) having a diameter of less than 20 nm, with a ratio C/D within a range of 95/5 to 70/30. Final Act. 5–6. The Examiner finds Kayama does not specify separate anatase and brookite particle diameters within the recited ranges. Id. at 5. The Examiner relies on Miyasaka as evidence that it was known to use relatively larger anatase titanium dioxide particles in an anatase/brookite particle dispersion, and determines it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Kayama’s Group C and D particles as anatase and brookite, respectively. Id.; Ans. 13. Kayama discloses a metal oxide dispersion suitable for producing an electrode for use in solar cells. Kayama ¶ 1. Kayama’s dispersion includes so-called Group A and Group B metal oxide particles, which can be titanium dioxide. Id. ¶ 108. Group A constitutes larger particles having an average primary particle diameter of 100 nm to 1 µm. Id. For Group B, Kayama states an average particle diameter of 5 to 40 nm, which may be provided as “two or more particle groups,” identified as Groups C and D. Id. ¶¶ 108, 109. Group C preferably has a primary particle diameter of 20 nm or more, and Group D preferable has a primary particle diameter of less than 20 nm. Id. ¶ 109. Group C and D particles are present in a ratio C/D from 95/5 to 70/30, and can include anatase and brookite crystal forms. Id. ¶¶ 112, 162. Appeal 2020-005043 Application 15/322,133 4 Appellant argues Kayama teaches away from providing Group B particles having an average primary particle diameter greater than 40 nm. Appeal Br. 8 (citing Kayama ¶ 111); Reply Br. 5. However, claim 1 does not require an average particle diameter greater than 40 nm. As noted, Kayama teaches Group B particles having an average particle diameter of from 5 to 40 nm, which can be made up of larger Group C particles (20 nm or larger) and smaller Group D particles (less than 20 nm). Kayama ¶¶ 108– 109. Thus, Kayama’s Group C particle diameter range overlaps that which is recited for anatase particles, and Kayama’s Group D particle diameter range overlaps that which is recited for brookite particles. The fact that Kayama teaches a Group B average particle diameter upper limit of 40 nm does not negate Kayama’s disclosure of ranges which overlap those recited in claim 1. Appellant also argues Kayama “emphasized benefits of having higher ratio of the brookite crystal-type titanium dioxide.” Appeal Br. 9 (citing Kayama ¶¶ 169, 170, 172, 173) (emphasis omitted). At the passages identified by Appellant, Kayama teaches brookite crystal form preferably is “35 mass % or more,” and should not be less than 10 mass % or greater than 95 mass %. Kayama ¶¶ 169, 170. Appellant does not demonstrate why these disclosures would lead to an anatase/brookite ratio not encompassed by claim 1. To the contrary, Kayama expressly states “the fine particulate [Group B] titanium dioxide . . . preferably comprises, as the main phase, an anatase crystal or a brookite crystal.” Id. ¶ 153. Kayama’s teaching of anatase crystal as a suitable “main phase” suggests providing anatase crystal as the predominant crystal form. Kayama also teaches use of brookite crystal particles as the smaller Group D particle component of the Group B Appeal 2020-005043 Application 15/322,133 5 particles in the dispersion. Id. ¶ 171. The foregoing teachings support the Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to select anatase titanium dioxide for Group C particles, and brookite titanium dioxide for Kayama’s Group D particles. Kayama’s teaching that Group C and Group D particles are present in a ratio C/D from 95/5 to 70/30 (Kayama ¶ 112), therefore, would meet the recited value of 60 % or more anatase particles relative to anatase and brookite particles combined. For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Claim 5 Appellant does not present argument concerning claim 5 apart from the arguments raised in connection with claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 for the reasons set forth above. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 5 is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 5 103 Kayama, Miyasaka 1, 5 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)(iv) AFFIRMED