13054195 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2016)

Ex Parte Bouvier et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 9, 2016

13054195 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2016)

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. 13/054,195 02/22/2011 Edouard S. P. Bouvier W-571-01 5180 43840 7590 03/10/2016 Waters Technologies Corporation 34 MAPLE STREET - LG MILFORD, MA 01757 EXAMINER MERCADO, ALEXANDER A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2856 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/10/2016 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 EDOUARD S. P. BOUVIER and MOON CHUL JUNG ____________________ Appeal 2014-006241 Application 13/054,195 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 3–7, 9, and 10. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Our Decision makes reference to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Jan. 21, 2014) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Apr. 29, 2014), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Apr. 11, 2014), and the Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed June 18, 2013). Appeal 2014-006241 Application 13/054,195 2 Appellants invented an apparatus having a surface comprising one or more coatings that are relatively inert and methods for making such surfaces. Spec. 1:14–15. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below: 1. A device for performing liquid chromatography having at least one wetted surface having a composition of a polysilazane or polysilazane-like material, wherein the wetted surface is part of a frit comprising a plug of particles coated with cured polysilazane or polysilazane-like material, wherein the cured polysilazane or polysilazane-like material is cross linked but not mineralized or crystallized. REFERENCE The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Betz US 2005/0169803 A1 Aug. 4, 2005 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3, 4, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Betz. Final Act. 2–3. Claims 5, 6, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Betz. Final Act. 3–5. ISSUE The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3–7, 9, and 10 turns on whether Betz discloses that the “cured polysilazane or polysilazane-like material is cross linked but not mineralized or crystallized,” as per independent claim 1, and whether Betz discloses that “curing said coated particles at a temperature up to about 200C,” as per independent claim 7. Appeal 2014-006241 Application 13/054,195 3 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 3, 4, and 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Betz Appellants contend that Betz’s polysilazane or polysilazane-like “coating is mineralized or crystallized, because Betz’s coating is formed at temperatures much higher than the temperatures used by the claimed invention in coating a frit.” App. Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 2–3. Appellants agree that Betz discloses curing frits at a temperature of 200C and completing the curing at 450C, but argue that curing at 200C is an intermediate or transitional temperature, and the curing is actually done at 450C. Id. We disagree with Appellants. Claim 1 requires that “the cured polysilazane or polysilazane-like material is cross linked but not mineralized or crystallized.” That is, claim 1 only requires that the material is “cross linked” and that it is not “mineralized or crystallized.” As found by the Examiner, Betz discloses a cross-linked polymer film is formed between a temperature range of about 25C and about 450C. Ans. 2 (citing Betz ¶ 44). Betz further discloses that a cross-linked polymer converts to a ceramic state at temperatures between about 400C and about 2200C. Betz ¶ 44. The Examiner further found that Betz discloses placing frits in an oven for curing to a preceramic state at 200C for ten minutes, then increasing the temperature to 450C for thirty minutes. Ans. 2 (citing Betz ¶ 158). We agree with the Examiner that material cured to a preceramic state between the temperatures of 25C and 450C will cure the material to a “cross linked” state, and not to a “mineralized or crystallized” ceramic state. Appellants’ contention is based on the notion that at temperatures over Appeal 2014-006241 Application 13/054,195 4 400C the material must “mineralize or crystalize” (Reply Br. 3); however, a person with ordinary skill in the art would have understood from Betz’s disclosure that material cured to a preceramic state at the disclosed cross linking temperature between 25C and 450C would render the material cross linked, and not “mineralized or crystallized.” Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Betz. Claims 5, 6, 9, and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Betz Appellants again contend that Betz discloses curing frits at a temperature of 200C and then completing the curing at 450C, but argue that curing at 200C is an intermediate or transitional temperature, and the curing is actually done at 450C. App. Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 3–4. We disagree with Appellants. Claim 7 recites “curing said coated particles at a temperature up to about 200C.” As discussed above, the Examiner further found that Betz teaches placing frits in an oven for curing to a preceramic state at 200C for ten minutes, then increasing the temperature to 450C for thirty minutes. Ans. 2 (citing Betz ¶ 158). We agree with the Examiner that a person with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to complete the curing the frits at a temperature of 200C because of Betz’s disclosure of curing the frits at an initial temperature of 200C. See Betz ¶ 158. Appellants do not provide any persuasive evidence or rationale why the curing cannot be completed at the initial temperature of 200C. Appeal 2014-006241 Application 13/054,195 5 Absent any persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner’s position, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 6, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Betz. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3–7, 9, and 10. DECISION To summarize, the rejection of claims 1, 3–7, 9, and 10 is affirmed. 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