Ex Parte Knaapila et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 2017

13326579 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2017)

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.
13/326,579 12/15/2011 Matti KNAAPILA 11130 1040
23338 7590 05/01/2017
T ADASfrPARRY T T P
EXAMINER
1700 Diagonal Road
SUITE 505
MCNALLY, DANIEL
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2017 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):
avmail@ladas.com
mmacdonald @ ladas .com
jclimo@ladas.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTI KNAAPILA,
MARK BUCHANAN, and GEIR HELGESEN
Appeal 2016-001438
Application 13/326,579
Technology Center 1700
Before RAE LYNN P. GUEST, GEORGE C. BEST, and
DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 13—21 of Application
13/326,579 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. (March 24,
2014). Appellants1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
1 Condalign AS is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-001438
Application 13/326,579
BACKGROUND
The ’579 Application describes methods for forming a polymer body
with anisotropic conductance. Spec. 1. The conductive paths in the polymer
body comprise conductive particles dispersed in a non-conductive polymer
matrix. Id.
Claim 13—the sole independent claim on appeal—is representative of
the appealed claims and is reproduced below:
13. A method for producing a polymer composition with the
ability to be cured by UV light to an anisotropic electrically
conductive polymer layer, comprising the steps of:
providing a non-conductive matrix of a flowable polymer
composition having inherent photocurability;
adding to said matrix conductive particles having a low
aspect ratio in an amount sufficiently low to allow the
concentration of the conductive particles to be maintained at a
level lower than the percolation threshold of isotropic mixture;
and
placing the thus formed composition in a receptacle in
which exposure to UV light is prevented;
wherein the aspect ratio for at least 90% of the
conductive particles is in the range below 20.
Response to Notification of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief 14 (Corrected
Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal 2016-001438
Application 13/326,579
REJECTION
On appeal, the Examiner maintains2 the following rejection:
Claims 13—21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Chaffins,3 Key worth,4 and
McArdle.5 Advisory Action 2 (July 7, 2014).
DISCUSSION
In the Advisory Action, the Examiner rejected claims 13—21 of the
’579 Application as unpatentable over the combination of Chaffins,
Keyworth, and McArdle. Advisory Action 2. This is the ground of rejection
that the Examiner maintains in the Examiner’s Answer. Answer 2—5.
Appellants argue for reversal of this rejection without reference to any
specific claim. See Appeal Br. 9-12. Accordingly, we select claim 13 as
representative of the claims on appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
The remaining claims will stand or fall with claim 13. Id.
2 In response to the Final Action, Appellants filed an Amendment and
Request for Reconsideration. Response After Final (June 24, 2014). The
Examiner entered the claim amendments on July 7, 2014. Advisory Action
1 (July 7, 2014). In the Advisory Action, the Examiner indicated that the
claim amendments had overcome one of the two rejections in the Final
Action. Id. at 2. The Examiner, however, issued a new ground of rejection
covering all of the pending claims in the ’579 Application. Id.
3 US 2009/0038832 Al, published February 12, 2009.
4 US 5,534,101, published July 9, 1996.
5 US 5,769,996, issued June 23, 1998.
3
Appeal 2016-001438
Application 13/326,579
Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 13 should be reversed
because
[t]he Examiner has not articulated any reasoning why a person
of ordinary skill in the art would combine the general process of
Chaffins with particles from the very different process of
McArdle, in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, the Examiner has not made a prima facie case of
obviousness.
Appeal Br. 12.
Appellants’ assertion is incorrect and, therefore, is unpersuasive. In
rejecting claim 13, the Examiner found that McArdle describes the use of
particles having an aspect ratio within the range of 10/1 to 1/1. Advisory
Action 2. The Examiner also found that
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of [the] invention ... to modify Chaffins by
selecting conductive particles with an aspect ratio between 10/1
and 1/1 as disclosed by McArdle in order to ensure the particles
[form an] anisotropic conductive pathway, to reduce the cost of
the adhesive by using readily available particles, and as it is
merely the predictable use of known prior art elements
(particles with a 10/1 to 1/1 aspect ratio) for its intended
function (to create a conductive pathway in the adhesive).
Id.
Thus, contrary to Appellants’ assertion, the Examiner has identified
reasons to combine Chaffins and McArdle. Appellants do not point to any
reversible error in the Examiner’s finding in this regard nor do they argue or
provide evidence that McArdle’s particles would not work to create a
conductive pathway, as taught by McArdle, in Chaffins’s process.
Appellants’ additional arguments also are unpersuasive. In particular,
Appellants focus on Chaffins’ alleged failure to describe or suggest the use
of low aspect ratio particles. Appeal Br. 9-10; see also Reply Br. In
4
Appeal 2016-001438
Application 13/326,579
particular, Appellants argue that Chaffins’ description is limited to the use of
high aspect ratio particles. This argument is unpersuasive both because
Chaffins’ disclosure is not so limited and because the Examiner relied upon
McArdle as teaching the use of low aspect ratio particles. Advisory Action
2.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 13—21 as unpatentable over the combination of Chaffins, Keyworth,
and McArdle.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
5