Ex Parte Clovesko et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2019

11590061 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/590,061 10/31/2006
146032 7590
NeoGraf Solutions, LLC
Timothy R. Krogh
11709 Madison A venue
Lakewood, OH 44107
02/25/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Timothy Clovesko
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.
Pl094-4 5170
EXAMINER
MILLER, DANIEL H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1783
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2019 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):
TKrogh@NeoGraf.com
PatrickFloyd.Esq@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIMOTHY CLOVESKO, JULIAN NORLEY,
MARTIN DAVID SMALC, and JOSEPH PAUL CAPP
Appeal2018-004413
Application 11/590,061
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner's decision
to reject claims 1, 2, 12-15, and 17-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
1 In our opinion below, we refer to the Final Office Action dated May 26,
2017 (Final), the Appeal Brief filed October 6, 2017 (Appeal Br.), the
Examiner's Answer dated January 26, 2018 (Ans.), and the Reply Brief filed
March 24, 2018 (Reply Br.).
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as NeoGraf Solutions, LLC.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-004413
Application 11/590,061
over Morita3 in view of Tzeng '520,4 Khatri, 5 Harris, 6 and Tzeng '400. 7 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
The claims are directed to a display device having a display panel,
heat sources, and a thermal stress reduction system, which comprises a heat
spreader. See, e.g., claims 1, 17, and claim 20. All the claims require the
heat spreader include a sheet of compressed particles of exfoliated graphite.
Id. Claim 1 is representative:
1. A display device, comprising a display panel having a
size of at least one meter, a plurality of heat sources, and a
thermal stress reduction system which comprises a heat
spreader including a sheet of compressed particles of exfoliated
graphite having first and second major surfaces, the graphite
sheet having a thickness of from about 0.25 mm to about 1.0
mm and a surface area larger than the surface area of one of the
heat sources, wherein the first major surface has a pressure
sensitive acrylic adhesive adhered thereon to permit
substantially all of the first major surface to be in thermal
contact with the plurality of heat sources in the display device
wherein the adhesive has a release load of no greater than 40
glcm at a release speed of one meter per second and achieves a
minimum lap shear adhesion strength of at least about 125
grams per square centimeter, and further wherein the graphite
sheet has a density of from about 1.6 glee to about 1.9 glee and
a plastic backing layer on the second major surface.
Appeal Br. 33 (claims appendix) (emphasis added).
3 Morita et al., US 5,831,374, issued Nov. 3, 1998 ("Morita").
4 Tzeng, US 6,482,520 Bl, issued Nov. 19, 2002 ("Tzeng '520").
5 Khatri, US 6,610,635 B2, issued Aug. 26, 2003.
6 Harris et al., US 5,748,269, issued May 5, 1998 ("Harris").
7 Tzeng et al., US 6,245,400 Bl, issued June 12, 2001 ("Tzeng '400").
2
Appeal2018-004413
Application 11/590,061
OPINION
We have reviewed the rejection of claims in this Application twice
before. First in Appeal No. 2011-001666 and again in Appeal No. 2015-
000974. Both times we affirmed the decision of the Examiner to reject
claims on grounds similar to those under review here. However, Appellants
now rely on evidence of unexpected results that was not considered before.
The Examiner has not adequately responded to the new evidence. And for
this reason, we reverse.
Appellants contend that substituting Morita's high-orientation
graphite with a sheet of compressed particles of exfoliated graphite, such as
that taught by Tzeng '520, provides unexpected results. Appeal Br. 21.
Appellants rely on evidence presented in the Smale Declaration. 8 Appeal
Br. 21-24. According to Appellants, Smale tested the following four
graphite heat spreaders:
1. SS 1500 - 1500 W /mK, 25 microns thick (NeoGraf Solutions
material said to be similar to Morita's graphite)
2. Panasonic PGS - 940 W /mK, 70 microns thick ( commercially
available pyrolytic graphite said to be equivalent to Morita's
graphite)
3. SS400 - 400 W /mK, 250 microns thick ( claimed Graphite- I)
4. SS400-400 W/mK, 500 microns thick (claimed Graphite-2)
Appeal Br. 21; Smale Deel. ,r 15, Exhibit B slide 3.
Smale reports results showing that 25 micron and 70 micron thick
heat spreaders ( comparative samples 1 and 2 above), although thinner than
8 Declaration of Martin Smale, entered October 24, 2016 ("Smale Deel.").
Appeal Br. evidence appendix.
3
Appeal2018-004413
Application 11/590,061
the 250 and 500 micron thick SS400 samples (inventive samples 3 and 4
above), have higher spreader thermal resistance and higher temperature
gradients across the heat spreaders. Smale Deel. ,r 21. The temperature
gradients are shown in Exhibit B slide 6. Appellants provide a table
summarizing results. Appeal Br. 23. Smale declares that "it is my opinion
that a SS 400 sample having a thickness of 1.0 mm would have the same
results as of the SS 400 sample having a thickness of 0.5 mm." Smale Deel.
i123.
According to Smale, it is surprising that "thick heat spreaders made
from compressed exfoliated natural graphite actually provide better heat
spreading and hot spot reduction as compared to thin heat spreaders made
from pyrolytic graphite sheets." Smale Deel. ,r 22. Smale explains that
"[t]his result is surprising given that pyrolytic graphite has a higher
anisotropic ratio than does compressed exfoliated graphite" and, "[t]hus,
without knowing about the results displayed in Exhibit B, one of skill in the
art would utilize pyrolytic graphite sheets, not compressed exfoliated
graphite sheets, to improve the anisotropic nature of a heat spreader." Id.
The Examiner states that "Appellant has not demonstrated any
criticality because he has not shown an unexpected result." Ans. 13.
However, the Examiner's further explanation does not adequately address
the showing. Ans. 13-14. The Examiner's reasoning discusses
delamination, and it is not clear how any potential problem with
delamination relates to the unexpected aspect of obtaining better heat
spreading from a less anisotropic graphite material.
The Examiner has not adequately addressed why the evidence is
insufficient to support the showing that the less anisotropic sheet of
4
Appeal2018-004413
Application 11/590,061
compressed particles of exfoliated graphite unexpectedly spread heat more
evenly and with less thermal resistance than more anisotropic thinner
graphite sheets similar to those taught by Morita.
CONCLUSION
Because the Examiner does not properly address the showing of
unexpected results, we do not sustain the rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
5