Ex Parte LI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 13, 2018

12121260 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/121,260 05/15/2008
75589 7590 06/15/2018
Matheson Keys Daffer & Kordzik PLLC
7004 Bee Cave Rd.
Bldg. 1, Suite 110
Austin, TX 78746
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yun jun Li
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.
21545-208001 6530
EXAMINER
PADGETT, MARIANNE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1717
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/15/2018 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):
kkordzik@mathesonkeys.com
kdaffer@mathesonkeys.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUNJUN LI, DAVID MAX ROUNDHILL,
MOHSHI YANG, IGOR PA VLOVSKY,
RICHARD LEE FINK, and ZVI Y ANIV
Appeal2016-003786
Application 12/121,260 1
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
JANEE. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 11, 14--16, 18, 21-30, 34, 39-42, 46, 48-51, 54, 55,
58-70, and 72-82. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 According to Appellants, the real parties in interest are Applied Nanotech
Holdings, Inc. and Ishihara Chemical Co., Ltd. App. Br. 1.
2 Claims 19, 20, and 43--45 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 3, 4, 9, 12, 13, 17, 31-33, 35-38, 47, 52, 53, 56, 57, and 71 have
been previously cancelled. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
The invention relates generally to a method of forming a conductive
layer on a substrate such as a printed circuit board. (Spec. 1, 11. 7-10).
Independent claim 1 is representative of the appealed subject matter and is
reproduced below:
1. A method of forming a conductive layer comprising:
depositing a film containing a plurality of copper
nanoparticle structures on a surface of a substrate;
exposing at least a portion of the film to light to make the
exposed portion conductive, so as to form the conductive layer,
wherein the exposing at least a portion of the film photosinters
at least a portion of the copper nanoparticle structures, wherein
the photosintering of copper nanoparticle structures comprises a
photoreduction of CuO and Cu20 in the copper nanoparticle
structures to Cu.
Claims Appendix to App. Br.
The following rejections are presented for our review:
I. Claims 21, 41, and 77 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph. 3
II. Claims 49, 58, 62, 63, 66, 68, and 74 rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as failing to comply with
the written description requirement. 4
III. Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 14--16, 34, 46, 48, 58, 59, 61, 69, 72, 76,
78, and 79 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated
3 The Examiner has indicated the rejection of claims 55 and 70 has been
withdrawn. (Ans. 6).
4 The Examiner has indicated the rejection of claims 60 and 61 has been
withdrawn. (Ans. 6).
2
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
by Schroder et al. (US 7,820,097, published Oct. 26, 2010)
(hereinafter "Schroder"), as evidenced by Pappas ( UV
Curing: Science and Technology Marketing Corporation
113-115 (Stamford Connecticut 197 6)) (hereinafter
"Pappas").
IV. Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 11, 14--16, 21, 22, 34, 39-42, 46, 48,
51, 58---66, 69, 72, 76, and 78-82 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Schroder, Pappas
and as Lewis (Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary
313 (12th Edition 1993)) (hereinafter "Lewis").
V. Claims 18, 49, 68, 70, 74, 75, and 77 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Schroder, Pappas,
Lewis, and further in view of Hirai Hiroyuki (JP 2004-
143571 A, published May 20, 2004, machine translation)
(hereinafter "Hiroyuki"), optionally Hampden-Smith et al.
(US 2007/0281136 Al, published Dec. 6, 2007) (hereinafter
"Hampden-Smith") or Jablonski et al. (US 2007/0144305
Al, published June 28, 2007) (hereinafter "Jablonski").
VI. Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 11, 14--16, 18, 21-23, 34, 39-42, 46,
48-51, 58---66, 69, 72-74, and 76-82 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Kodas et al. (US
6,951,666 B2, published Oct. 4, 2005) (hereinafter
"Kodas"), Schroder, Pappas, and Lewis.
VII. Claims 23, 40, 46, 48-50, 58, 74, and 75 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Kodas,
Schroder, Pappas, and Lewis and further in view of
3
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
Vanheusden et al. (US 2006/0163744 Al, published July 27,
2006) (hereinafter "Vanheusden").
VIII. Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 11, 14--16, 18, 22-30, 34, 39-42, 46,
48-51, 54, 55, 58---67, 69, and 72-82 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Kodas,
Schroder, Pappas, Lewis, Vanheusden, and all secondary
references as applied above. 5
IX. Claim 21 rejected 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Kodas, Schroder, Pappas, Lewis,
Vanheusden, and Fujimoto et al. (US 7,776,196 B2, issued
Aug. 17, 2010) (hereinafter "Fujimoto") or Hill et al. (US
6,899,755 B2, issued May 31, 2005) (hereinafter "Hill") or
Axtell, III et al. (US 6,238,847 Bl, issued May 29, 2001)
(hereinafter "Axtell").
X. Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 11, 14--16, 18, 21-30, 34, 39-42, 46,
48-51, 54, 55, 58---67, 69, and 72-82 stand provisionally
rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type
double patenting as unpatentable over U.S. Patent
Application No. 14/073,986 (published as Yaniv et al. (U.S.
Published Patent Application No. 2014/0057428, now US
Patent 9,131,610 B2, issued Sept. 8, 2015)) (hereinafter
5 We believe the referenced secondary references applied above is referring
to Hiroyuki, Hampden-Smith and Jablonski.
4
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
'986 Application)) in view of Kodas, Schroder, Pappas,
Lewis, V anheusden, and Axtell. 6
XI. Claims 1, 2, 5, 14, 15, 34, 46, 58, 59, 61, 69, 72, 76, 80, and
81 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of Li et al.
(US 8,911,823 B2, issued Dec. 16, 2014) (hereinafter "Li").
XII. Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 11, 14--16, 18, 21-30, 34, 39-42, 46, 48-51,
54, 55, 58-67, 69, and 72-82 rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-13
and 17-25 ofYaniv et al. (U.S. 8,422,197 B2, issued Apr. 16,
2013) (hereinafter "Yaniv '197") in view ofKodas, Schroder,
Pappas, Lewis, Vanheusden, and Axtell.
XIII. Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 11, 14--16, 18, 21-30, 34, 39-42, 46, 48-51,
54, 55, 58---67, 69, and 72-82 rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-14 of
Yaniv et al. (U.S. 8,647,979 B2, issued Feb. 11, 2014) (hereinafter
"Yaniv '979") in view of Kodas, Schroder, Pappas, Lewis,
Vanheusden, and Axtell.
XIV. Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 11, 14--16, 18, 21-30, 34, 39-42, 46, 48-51,
54, 55, 58---67, 69, and 72-82 rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-16 of
Li in view of Kodas, Schroder, Pappas, Lewis, Vanheusden, and
Axtell.
6 The nonobvious type double patent the rejection over applications
12/496,453, 12/466,323, and 14/348,846 are moot because these applications
have been abandoned.
5
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
The statement of the rejections on appeal appear in the Non-Final
Office Action (mailed June 13, 2014) and Final Office Action (mailed
January 12, 2015).
OPINION
I. Claims 21, 41, and 77 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
"[W]e apply the approach for assessing indefiniteness approved by the
Federal Circuit in Packard, i.e., '[a] claim is indefinite when it contains
words or phrases whose meaning is unclear."' Ex parte McAward, No.
2015-006416, 2017 WL 3669566, at *5 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2017)
(precedential) (quoting In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1310, 1314 (Fed. Cir.
2014)). The language in 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, "of
'particular[ity ]' and 'distinct[ ness ]' indicates[] claims are required to be cast
in clear-as opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite-terms." Packard,
751 F.3d at 1313.
Claim 21
We reverse.
The Examiner determined claim 21 was indefinite because of the
language "which further fuses the copper nanoparticle structures with the
substrate."
Appellants refer to Specification pg. 33 as describing the disputed
claim language. (App. Br. 18). Claim 21 further defines the method of
claim 1 by indicating the film is exposed to the light through a backside of
the substrate. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the
metes and bounds of claim 21.
6
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
Claims 41 and 77
We reverse.
According to the Examiner, claims 41 and 77 are indefinite because
the content of the various components are described as "loading
concentrations." (Final Act. 7).
Appellants refer to Specification pages 35-36 as describing the
disputed claim language. (App. Br. 19). Claim 41 recites the loading
concentration of copper oxides in the fused film does not exceed 30%. The
Examiner has not refuted Appellants' position that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have recognized loading concentration refers to a volume
concentration of materials within a composition, since concentration is
usually expressed in terms of mass per unit volume.
II. Claims 49, 58, 62, 63, 66, 68, and 74 rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description
requirement.
In rejecting a claim under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for
lack of adequate descriptive support, it is incumbent upon the Examiner to
establish that the originally-filed disclosure would not have reasonably
conveyed to one having ordinary skill in the art that Appellants had
possession of the now claimed subject matter. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli
Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en bane). Adequate
description under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 does not require
literal support for the claimed invention. In re Herschler, 591 F.2d 693, 701
(CCPA 1979); In re Edwards, 568 F.2d 1349, 1351-52 (CCPA 1978); In re
7
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,262 (CCPA 1976). Rather, it is sufficient if the
originally-filed disclosure would have conveyed to one having ordinary skill
in the art that an appellant had possession of the concept of what is claimed.
In re Anderson, 471 F.2d 1237, 1242 (CCPA 1973).
Claim 49
We reverse.
According to the Non-Final Office Action dated June 13, 2014, the
Examiner contends Appellants' amendments to claim 49 to replace the
trademarks with generic names introduces new matter to the record. (Non-
Final Act. 9--10). The Examiner contends the Wikipedia document supplied
as evidence identifying compounds that form the trademark compositions
was unacceptable.
We cannot sustain the rejection because the Examiner has failed to
explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized
the chemicals that form Triton-X-100 as indicated by Appellants. (App. Br.
22). Furthermore, Appellants indicated the cited Wikipedia also provides
reference to the Sigma-Aldrich online entry for Triton-X-100 for support of
the information within the Wikipedia entry. (Id.) The Examiner has not
refuted Appellants' position that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have recognized the dispersant agents described by claim 49 were the
chemicals that form Triton-X-100 as described by Sigma-Aldrich.
8
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
Claim 58
We reverse.
The Examiner contends claim 5 8 lacks support in the original
disclosure for the phrase "'wherein the copper oxides are reduced to metallic
copper and molecular oxygen."' (Non-Final Act. 10).
The Examiner's statement of the rejection lacks sufficient clarity to
provide meaningful review. The Examiner has apparently acknowledged
that it would be reasonable to assume that the disclosed method would have
resulted in metallic copper and molecular oxygen. (Final Act. 14--15). In
addition to the Specification, Appellants rely on the Declaration of Dr. Li 7 to
establish the claim language "wherein the copper oxides are reduced to
metallic copper and molecular oxygen," is supported by the originally filed
disclosure. The Examiner has failed to direct us to evidence to establish
that, during a reduction of copper oxide, a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have expected the formation of not only metallic copper and
molecular oxygen but other products exclusive of molecular oxygen.
Consequently, the Examiner has not established that Appellants were not in
possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 62 and 63
We reverse.
According to the Examiner, claim 62 does not include an upper limit
on the recited conductivity, and claim 63 does not include a lower limit on
resistivity. (Final Act. 12).
7 Declaration ofYunjun Li, dated October 7, 2011.
9
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
We agree with Appellants that one of ordinary skill in the art would
not interpret claims 62 and 63 in the open-ended manner asserted by the
Examiner. A person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the
photosintering process described by claim 62 as producing a conductive
layer with a conductivity approaching that of bulk copper ( and at least
greater than 1140th of bulk copper). (App. Br. 27). A person of ordinary
skill in the art would interpret the photosintering process described by claim
63 as producing a conductive layer with a resistivity approaching that of
bulk copper (and at most less than 40 times that of bulk copper). (App. Br.
28). The Examiner has not refuted Appellants' position.
Claim 66
We reverse.
According to the Examiner, claim 66 does not include a lower limit on
the resistivity. (Final Act. 12-13).
We agree with Appellants that one of ordinary skill in the art would
not interpret claim 66 in the open-ended manner asserted by the Examiner.
Appellants have identified portions of the Specification that described the
photosintering process that produces a conductivity layer having a resistivity
of less than 67.2 x 10-6 ohm-cm as required by claim 66. (App. Br. 30). The
Examiner has not refuted Appellants' position.
10
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
Claim 68
We reverse.
The Examiner has rejected claim 68 asserting that the Specification
supports the stated viscosity values of the solution, not the already deposited
film. (Final Act. 13).
We agree with Appellants that one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that claim 68 is referring to the film before the exposing step.
(App. Br. 31 ). Claim 68 is referring to the solutions of metal inks as
disclosed in the Specification at p. 29, 11. 1-12. The Examiner has not
refuted Appellants' position.
Claim 74
We reverse.
The Examiner has interpreted claim 7 4 to include no upper limit for
the nanoparticle sizes. (Final Act. 14).
We agree with Appellants that one of ordinary skill in the art would
not interpret claim 7 4 in the open-ended manner asserted by the Examiner.
Appellants have identified portions of the Specification that describe the
average diameters of the copper nanoparticle structures. (App. Br. 32). The
Examiner has not refuted Appellants' position.
III. Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 14--16, 34, 46, 48, 58, 59, 61, 69, 72, 76, 78, and
79 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Schroder as
evidenced by Pappas.
The statement of the rejection appears in the June 13, 2014 Non-Final
Office Action.
11
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
The proper test of whether a publication is anticipatory under § 102 is
"whether one skilled in the art to which the invention pertains could take the
description of the invention in the printed publication and combine it with
his own knowledge of the particular art and from this combination be put in
possession of the invention on which a patent is sought." In re Elsner, 381
F.3d 1125, 1128 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 939
(CCPA 1962)). In particular, in view of the publication, one must be able to
make the claimed invention without undue experimentation. Id. Disclosures
of "certain specific preferences" are relevant to an anticipation inquiry. In re
Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (CCPA 1962); see also In re Schaumann, 572
F.2d 312, 316-17 (CCPA 1978) (holding that preferences can also be set
forth by the claims).
The Examiner found Schroder describes a photonic process for
depositing a solution of metallic nanoparticles on a substrate. The Examiner
found Schroder discloses utilizing photonic energy to activate the metallic
nanoparticles. (Final Act. paragraph bridging 13-14). The Examiner found
Schroder's example 14 describes the dispersion of nano copper in
isopropanol on a sheet of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) that is subject to
photonic exposure with the xenon broadcast flash. (Id. at 19). The
Examiner determined Schroder inherently includes the claimed
photoreduction process. (Id. at 20). The Examiner relied upon Pappas as
evidence that a xenon flashlamp in pulse mode puts energy in the 3 50-500
nm wavelength range. The Examiner concludes Schroder's xenon lamp
produces wavelengths disclosed by Appellants for photoreducing Cu20. (Id.
at 20 citing Spec. 26, 11. 7-14).
The Examiner further states:
12
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
The relevant parameters to discuss with respect to
photoreduction, are the wavelengths that enable
photoreduction, which as discussed in applicant's specification
on page 26, lines 11-14 are UV wavelengths from "A-100-400
nm, where applicant's specification on page 28, lines 12-15
indicate that one source of such radiation is a xenon lamp;
hence as Schroder et al. (097) employs a xenon flashlamp, and
the examiner has supplied evidence apart from applicant's own
specification to show its wavelengths are as taught, & now as
also claimed by applicant, would have been present in Schroder
et al.' s photonic process using xenon flashlamp exposure; thus
credible evidence of photoreduction inherently occurring.
(Final Act. 17).
Schroder's described invention relates to methods for reacting,
activating or sintering nano-materials, including silver and copper
nanometals. (Schroder col. 3, 11. 26-36). Schroder further discloses the
invention utilizes a high powered, pulsed photonic source to process the
nanoparticles while minimally affecting the substrate. (Schroder col. 3, 11.
56- 58). Schroder discloses the described invention is suitable for use on
economical substrates such as cellulose (paper) and PET. (Schroder col. 2).
Schroder discloses a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized the described processes were suitable for copper nanoparticles.
(Schroder col. 8, 11. 17-20). Schroder discloses nanoparticles can be
suspended in various solvents, surfactants and dispersants, including a
solvent such as alcohol, for coating nonporous substrates. (Schroder col. 5,
11. 36-37 and col. 10, 11. 30-38). Schroder discloses the film or pattern
containing nanoparticles can be fabricated on a surface using a wide variety
of techniques including air brushing, inkjet, and painting. (Schroder col. 9,
11. 36-38). Schroder discloses the photonic curing process can be performed
13
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
an inert as well as non-controlled environments. (Schroder col. 14, 1. 48-
col. 15, 1. 3).
Claim 1
We affirm.
Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection is premised on the
possibility that Schroder describes a photosintering/photoreduction
mechanism and one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand that the
claimed photosintering/photoreduction mechanism is necessarily present in
the Schroder process. (App. Br. 36-37). Appellants argue Pappas is not
sufficient for providing the concrete evidence proposed by the Examiner,
since it merely discloses wavelengths emanating from a flashlamp for
possible use in ultraviolet curing. Appellants argue Pappas is only a generic
teaching, and is not specific to photosintering/photoreduction processes. As
such, Appellants argue the combined teachings of Schroder as evidenced by
Pappas do not amount to a concrete teaching in the art that
photosintering/photoreduction is induced solely by the application of UV
wavelengths from 100-400 nm. (App. Br. 38-39).
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. The
Examiner's rejection is based on Schroder performing essentially the same
process as presently claimed, using like materials and like radiation sources,
with no critical differences in processing between that disclosed in Schroder
versus that claimed. Schroder's example 14 describes a
photosintering/photoreduction mechanism and one of ordinary skill in the art
would understand that the claimed photosintering/photoreduction
mechanism is necessarily present in the Schroder process.
14
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
Appellants identify various portions of the Specification as describing
the conductivity and resistivity that is achieved by the claimed invention to
establish that the process of Schroder and the claimed invention are not the
same. (App. Br. 35-36). The portions of the Specification identified by
Appellants describe characteristics that are achievable by the disclosed
invention. The subject matter of claim 1 is not limited to the disclosed
conductivity and resistivity. Appellants have not directed us to specific
examples that provide properties to compare with the properties achieved by
Schroder's example 14.
Claims 2 and 5
We affirm.
Claim 2 further defines the method of claim 1 by specifying that
exposing at least a portion of the film to light causes at least a portion of the
copper nanoparticle structures to fuse together. Claim 5 further defines the
method of claim 1 by specifying the oxides migrate away from the area
where the copper nanoparticle structures are fused.
According to the present Specification, copper particles are fused,
without overheating the substrate, by exposing the particles to an intense but
brief pulse of light from the light source, wherein the light source is a xenon
lamp. (Spec. 5, 11. 5-14). Schroder's example 14 discloses exposing the
particles to a pulse of light from a xenon lamp source. Appellants have
failed to explain why the conditions of Schroder' s example 14 are
insufficient to fuse the copper particles. Appellants have failed to
persuasively explain why the conditions of Schroder' s example 14 are
15
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
inadequate to cause the oxides to migrate away from the area where the
copper nanoparticles are fused.
Claim 6
We affirm.
Claim 6 recites that exposing at least a portion of the film comprises
directing a laser at the film. Appellants argue the Examiner has not
identified where the feature of claim 6 is described by the cited prior art.
(App. Br. 48--49).
Schroder discloses photonic activation of metallic nanoparticles by
radiative means such as laser sintering or flashlamp, which are sintering
techniques that transform nonconductive nanoparticles to conductive metal.
(Schroder col. 6, 1. 64---col. 7, 1. 7). Accordingly, Appellants' arguments are
not persuasive of reversible error.
Claims 7 and 8
We affirm.
Appellants, when addressing these claims in the principal brief, restate
elements from the specific claims and provide the statement that the
Examiner has not specifically addressed these claims on pages 16-21 of the
Final Office Action. (App. Br. 49--50).
Appellants' statements repeating the elements of the claims do not
amount to substantial arguments. For example, Appellants have not
explained a patentable distinction between the source of the light utilized to
expose at least a portion of the film compared to the light source utilized in
Schroder's example 14. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
16
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
recognized the appropriate light sources and environment for exposing a
portion of the film to light from the teachings of Schroder.
Claim 14
We affirm.
Claim 14 further defines the method of claim 1 by specifying, before
the exposing of at least a portion of the film, the film is non-conductive and
is deposited from a solution containing the copper nanoparticle structures.
Claims 15 and 16 both depend from claim 14. Appellants argue the
Examiner has not identified where the features of claim 14 is described by
the cited prior art. (App. Br. 50).
Schroder discloses photonic activation of metallic nanoparticles by
radiative means such as laser sintering or flashlamp, which are sintering
techniques that transform nonconductive nanoparticles to conductive metal.
Schroder is directed to conductive patterning of nanomaterials comprising
nano metallic particles, flakes or powder which are applied to a substrate and
activated to form a conductive line. (Schroder cols. 2-3). Accordingly,
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
Claim 15
We affirm.
Claim 15 further defines the method of claim 14 by specifying adding
the copper nanoparticle structures to a solvent to form the solution prior to
depositing the film. Appellants argue the Examiner has not identified where
the feature of claim 15 is described by the cited prior art. (App. Br. 50).
17
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
Schroder discloses a photonic curing process including preparing
formulations comprising mixing the metal particle materials with various
solvents, surfactants and dispersants and producing patterns with the
formulas. (Schroder col. 10, 11. 28-33). Accordingly, Appellants'
arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
Claim 16
We affirm.
Claim 16 further defines the method of claim 15 by specifying adding
a dispersing agent to the solution. Appellants argue the Examiner has not
identified where the feature of claim 16 is described by the cited prior art.
(App. Br. 50-51).
Schroder discloses a photonic curing process that includes preparing
formulations comprising mixing the metal particle materials with various
solvents, surfactants, and dispersants, and producing patterns with the
formulas. (Schroder col. 10, 11. 28-33). Accordingly, Appellants'
arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
Claim 34
We affirm.
Claim 34 further defines the method of claim 2 by specifying that the
photosintering process precludes oxidation of interfaces between the copper
nanoparticle structures during the fusing together of the copper nanoparticle
structures.
Appellants, when addressing claim 34 in the principal brief, restate
elements from the specific claims and provide the statement that the
18
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
Examiner has not specifically addressed these claims on pages 16-21 of the
Final Office Action. (App. Br. 51 ).
Appellants' statements repeating the elements of the claims do not
amount to substantial arguments. Appellants have failed to persuasively
explain why Schroder's process which seeks to minimize oxidation does not
meet the present claimed invention. (See Schroder col. 15).
Claim 46
We affirm.
Claim 46 further defines the method of claim 2 by specifying the
fused copper nanoparticle structures have a fused portion. Appellants argue
that the Examiner has not specifically addressed these claims on pages 16-
21 of the Final Office Action, nor identified where the claimed feature is
disclosed within the applied prior art. (App. Br. 51 ).
According to the present Specification, copper particles are fused,
without overheating the substrate, by exposing the particles to an intense, but
brief, pulse of light from the light source, wherein the light source is a xenon
lamp. (Spec. 5, 11. 5-14). Schroder's example 14 discloses exposing the
particles to a pulse of light from a xenon lamp source. Appellants have
failed to persuasively explain why the conditions of Schroder's example 14
are insufficient to fuse the copper particles.
Claim 48
We affirm.
Claim 48 further defines the method of claim 15 by specifying the
solvents utilized to form the solution prior to depositing the film. Appellants
19
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
argue the Examiner has not identified where the feature of claim 48 is
described by the cited prior art. (App. Br. 51 ).
Schroder discloses a photonic curing process including preparing
formulations comprising mixing the metal particle materials with various
solvents, surfactants and dispersants, and producing patterns with the
formulas. (Schroder col. 10, 11. 28-33). Schroder further describes
isopropyl alcohol in various embodiments. A person of ordinary skill in the
art would have recognized the appropriate solvents to form the solution prior
to depositing the film from the teachings of Schroder. Accordingly,
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
Claims 58, 59, and 61
We affirm.
Independent claim 58 recites a method of forming a conductive layer
"wherein the copper oxides are reduced to metallic copper and molecular
oxygen, wherein the reduction involves an electron transfer from the copper
oxides to the metallic copper." Claim 59 recites a method of forming a
conductive layer, wherein the copper oxides in the copper nanoparticles
structures are photoreduced to copper and oxygen. Claim 61 further defines
the method of forming a conductive layer recited in claim 1 by specifying
that the photoreduction involves electron transfer from the copper oxides to
copper.
Appellants argue the Examiner has not identified where Schroder
describes the claimed invention. (App. Br. 52-55).
As stated above when addressing independent claim 1, Schroder' s
example 14 describes embodiments where copper with an oxide layer and a
20
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
small amount of nano-aluminum was utilized to produce copper having
better conductivity. As such, the formation of the metallic copper would
include an electron transfer from the copper oxides to the metallic copper.
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
Claim 69
We affirm.
Claim 69 further defines the method of forming a conductive layer
recited in claim 1 by specifying that the photoreduction involves electron
transfer from the copper oxides to copper.
Appellants argue the Examiner has not identified where Schroder
describes the reduction of the copper oxides to metallic copper involves an
electron transfer. (App. Br. 55-56).
As stated above when addressing independent claim 1, Schroder' s
example 14 describes embodiments where copper with an oxide layer and a
small amount of nano-aluminum was utilized to produce copper having
better conductivity. As such, the formation of the metallic copper would
necessarily include an electron transfer from the copper oxides to the
metallic copper. Accordingly, Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of
reversible error.
Claim 72
We affirm.
Claim 72 further defines the method of claim 2 by describing,
"passivating the copper nanoparticles structures prior to the photosintering"
21
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
of a portion of the copper nanoparticle structures, with the photoreduction
converting copper oxide to copper during fusing.
Appellants argue the Examiner has not identified where Schroder
discloses passivating the copper nanoparticle structures prior to
photosintering. (App. Br. 56-57). Appellants contend Schroder fails to
teach this step (id.).
Appellants' arguments not persuasive of reversible error. Initially, the
Examiner found that Schroder teaches that copper nanoparticles having an
oxide passivation layer were tested (Non-Final Act. 14--15; see also Final
Act. 17, 19-20 and Ans. 37). The Examiner further found that this oxide
passivation layer would have naturally formed during a copper oxidation or
passivation process (Final Act. 20). Appellants fail to address or otherwise
persuasively rebut these findings. Accordingly, Appellants' arguments are
not persuasive of reversible error.
Claim 76
We affirm.
Claim 7 6 further defines the method of forming a conductive layer
recited in claim 5 by specifying that CuO is transformed by photoreduction
to Cu and Cu20, and the Cu20 migrates away from the area where the
copper nanoparticles are fusing.
Appellants argue the Examiner has not identified where Schroder
describes these features. (App. Br. 58-59). Appellants contend that the
Examiner must prove that, in Schroder, Cu20 inherently migrates away from
an area where the copper nanoparticles are fusing (id. at 58). Appellants
22
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
also assert that the Examiner fails to address the recitation that CuO is
transformed during photoreduction into Cu20 and Cu (id. at 59).
As stated above when addressing independent claim 1, Schroder' s
example 14 describes embodiments where copper with an oxide layer and a
small amount of nano-aluminum was utilized to produce copper having
better conductivity in substantially the same process as claimed. As such,
the Examiner has a reasonable basis to believe that the formation of the
metallic copper would inherently include transformation of Schroder's
copper oxide by photoreduction to Cu20 and Cu, and migration of the Cu20
away from areas where the copper nanoparticles are fusing (see Non-Final
Act. 29; Final Act. 39-40). Where, as here, a claimed process and materials
appear to be identical or substantially identical to a process and materials
disclosed or suggested by the prior art, the burden is properly shifted to the
Appellants to show that the prior art process does not necessarily or
inherently possess the copper oxide photoreduction and migration broadly
recited in claim 76. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In
re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254-56 (CCPA 1977). Cf In re Crish, 393 F.3d
1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2004). An Examiner's belief is reasonable where
starting materials and processing of the prior art are so similar to those
disclosed by Appellants that it appears that the claimed characteristic would
naturally result when conducting the process as taught in the prior art. See
In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Best, at 1255.
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
Claim 78
We reverse.
23
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
Appellants argue the Examiner has not addressed the claim
requirement that "the light comprises UV radiation in a wavelength range of
about 100-400 nm that is absorbed by the Cu20 so that it is converted to the
Cu." (App. Br. 86).
The Examiner also has not adequately explained where Schroder
necessarily describes the application of UV wavelengths from 100-400 nm
for the reduction of copper oxides in the copper nanoparticle structures to
copper, as required by independent claim 78. Although the Examiner relies
on Schroder's use of a xenon flash lamp, the Examiner has not established
that xenon flash lamps necessarily produce UV radiation at wavelengths in
the range recited in this claim. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of
claim 78.
Claim 79
We reverse.
Claim 79 further defines the method of claim 78 by specifying the UV
radiation is absorbed by band gaps in the Cu20 to thereby result in the
conversion to the Cu.
For the reasons set forth above with regard to claim 78, we reverse
the rejection of claim 79.
IV. Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 11, 14--16, 21, 22, 34, 39-42, 46, 48, 51,
58---66, 69, 72, 76, and 78-82 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Schroder, Pappas, and Lewis.
The statement of the rejection appears in the June 13, 2014 office
action.
24
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
The Examiner relies upon Schroder's example 14 for describing
optimizing the particle oxide layer and photonic conditions to form
conductive of bulk copper.
Schroder' s example 14 states:
In the tests, the nanocopper was dispersed in isoproponal,
spread onto a sheet of PET and allowed to dry. The coating was
black in color and had almost infinite resistivity. The coating
was subjected to a 2.3 ms xenon broadcast flash and the
material immediately turned copper in color and the
conductivity increased to 1/100th that of bulk copper. Another
sample subjected to a higher-powered flash showed
conductivity results that were 1140th that of bulk copper. Better
results should be obtained by optimizing the particle oxide layer
and photonic conditions such that conductive of bulk copper is
approached. One such sample is shown in FIG. 4, which shows
uncured copper film and film after photo curing. It is speculated
that because of the inherent properties of the nanocopper, the
particles are heated and sintered in a time scale that is much
faster than the time scale for oxidation such that minimal
oxidation occurs.
(Schroder col. 15, 11. 6-22).
The Examiner found that if the passivation oxide layer on the copper
nanoparticles of Schroder does not inherently possess CuO and Cu20, it
would have alternatively been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
employ conventional oxidation means to cause passivation. The Examiner
found this would have included utilizing a strong oxidizing agent that would
reasonably have been expected to produce oxide passivation including the
presence of CuO and Cu20 in the resultant oxide. The Examiner cited
Lewis for describing the properties of cupric oxide. (Non-Final Act. 17).
The Examiner recognizes Schroder does not indicate the color of the oxidize
passivation; however, the Examiner contends the resulting black color
25
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
change appearing in example 14 reasonably suggests the copper oxide
species. The Examiner further states:
(Id.)
[O]ne of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider that
the oxide passivation layer was at least predominantly Cu20;
thus would reasonably have been expected given the teachings
of Schroder et al. (097) to optimize their formation of a
passivation layer to be predominantly Cu20.
Claim 1
We affirm.
Appellants argue Schroder teaches away from any desire to passivate
(i.e., "create passive activity") copper nanoparticles. Appellants argue
example 14 teaches the sintering process for nanocopper must be performed
sufficiently fast to minimize the occurrence of oxidation. (App. Br. 64).
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. The Specification indicates
metallic nanoparticles are passivated by an oxide layer on their surface.
(Spec. 17). Appellants have not disputed that Schroder' s example 14
describes an oxide layer on the surface of copper nanoparticles. Appellants
argue "the Examiner has not shown where the prior art teaches or suggests
the desirability of optimizing a passivation layer to be predominantly Cu20
for use in a method for making a conductive layer." (App. Br. 65).
This argument lacks persuasive merit because claim 1 does not require
the passivation layer to be predominantly Cu20.
Appellants further argue the Examiner has not established that
photosintering/ photoreduction of copper oxides into copper was known in
the art to be inherent within the Schroder process. (App. Br. 66).
26
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
We agree with the Examiner's response to this argument in the
Answer. (Ans. 39-41). This argument lacks persuasive merit because
Schroder' s example 14 describes embodiments where copper with an oxide
layer and a small amount of nano-aluminum was utilized to produce copper
having better conductivity.
Claim 2
We affirm.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has failed to provide a prima facie
case of obviousness in rejecting claim 2. (App. Br. 66-67).
According to the present Specification, copper particles are fused,
without overheating the substrate, by exposing the particles to an intense but
brief pulse of light from a xenon lamp light source. (Spec. 5, 11. 5-14).
Schroder' s example 14 discloses exposing the particles to a pulse of light
from a xenon lamp source. Appellants have failed to explain why the
conditions of Schroder's example 14 are insufficient to fuse the copper
particles.
Claims 5-8
We affirm.
Appellants, when addressing these claims in the principal brief, restate
elements from the specific claims and provide the statement that the
Examiner has not specifically addressed these claims on pages 21-27 of the
Final Office Action. (App. Br. 67---68).
Appellants' statements repeating the elements of the claims do not
amount to substantial arguments. For example, Appellants have not
27
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
explained a patentable distinction between the source of the light utilized to
expose at least a portion of the film compared to the light source utilized in
Schroder's example 14. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
sufficient skill to select the appropriate light source and environment for
exposing a portion of the film to light.
Claims 10 and 11
We affirm.
Claims 10 and 11 describe the environment where film exposure
occurs. Schroder discloses the photonic curing process overcomes the
limitation of using readily oxidizing and/or reactive material, such as copper,
by allowing the nanomaterials to be processed without a controlled
environment. (Schroder, col. 14, 11. 49-68). Consequently, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have had sufficient skill to select the
appropriate reaction environment, ambient air or inert, for exposing a
portion of the film to light. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
had sufficient skill to select an inert environment to provide for further
resistance to oxidation.
Claim 14
We affirm.
Claim 14 further defines the method of claim 1 by specifying, before
exposing of at least a portion of the film, the film is non-conductive and is
deposited from a solution containing the copper nanoparticle structures.
Claims 15 and 16 both depend from claim 14. Appellants argue the
28
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
Examiner has not identified where the feature of claim 14 is described by the
cited prior art. (App. Br. 50).
Schroder discloses photonic activation of metallic nanoparticles by
radiative means such as laser sintering or flashlamp, which are sintering
techniques that transform nonconductive nanoparticles to conductive metal.
Schroder is directed to conductive patterning of nanomaterials comprising
nano metallic particles, flakes or powder which are applied to a substrate
from a solution and activated to form a conductive line. (Schroder cols. 2-
3). Accordingly, Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible
error.
Claim 15
We affirm.
Claim 15 further defines the method of claim 14 by specifying adding
the copper nanoparticle structures to a solvent to form the solution prior to
depositing the film. Appellants argue the Examiner has not identified where
the feature of claim 15 is described by the cited prior art. (App. Br. 50).
Schroder discloses the photonic curing process includes preparing
formulations by mixing the metal particle materials with various solvents,
surfactants and dispersants, and producing patterns with the formulations.
(Schroder col. 10, 11. 28-33). Accordingly, Appellants' arguments are not
persuasive of reversible error.
29
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
Claim 16
We affirm.
Claim 16 further defines the method of claim 15 by specifying adding
a dispersing agent to the solution. Appellants argue the Examiner has not
identified where the feature of claim 16 is described by the cited prior art.
(App. Br. 50-51).
Schroder discloses the photonic curing process includes preparing
formulations by mixing the metal particle materials with various solvents,
surfactants and dispersants, and producing patterns with the formulations.
(Schroder col. 10, 11. 28-33). Accordingly, Appellants' arguments are not
persuasive of reversible error.
Claim 21
We reverse.
Claim 21 further defines the method of claim 1 by specifying that the
film is exposed to the light through a backside of the substrate which further
fuses the copper nanoparticle structures with the substrate. Appellants
correctly argue the Examiner has not identified where the feature of claim 21
is described by the cited prior art. (App. Br. 70-72).
Claim 22
We affirm.
Claim 22 further defines the method of claim 1 by specifying that the
substrate is flexible. Schroder discloses and exemplifies a wide variety of
suitable flexible substrates including polyethylene terephthalate (PET),
polyester, polymers, resins, and paper products. (Schroder col. 2, 11. 3-9).
30
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
Appellants have failed to explain why the claimed invention is patentably
distinct from Schroder's disclosed flexible substrates.
Claim 34
We affirm.
Claim 34 further defines the method of claim 2 by specifying that the
photosintering process precludes oxidation of interfaces between the copper
nanoparticle structures during the fusing together of the copper nanoparticle
structures.
Appellants, when addressing claim 34 in the principal brief, restate
elements from the specific claims and provide the statement that the
Examiner has not specifically addressed these claims on pages 21-27 of the
Final Office Action. (App. Br. 73).
Appellants' statements repeating the elements of the claims do not
amount to substantial arguments. Appellants have failed to explain why
Schroder' s process which seeks to minimize oxidation does not meet the
present claimed invention. (See Schroder col. 15).
Claim 39
We reverse.
Claim 39 recites that the film has a viscosity in a range of 8-20
centipoise, and a surface tension in a range of 20-60 dyne/cm2. The
Examiner contends that Schroder's example 14, which describes nano
copper dispersed in isopropanol that is spread on a sheet of PET and allowed
to dry, meets the claimed invention. (Ans. 45--46). The Examiner has not
directed us to evidence to establish that the deposited film of example 14
31
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
necessarily has the viscosity and surface tension required by the claimed
invention.
Claim 40
We affirm.
Claim 40 further defines the method of claim 1 by specifying that the
depositing and exposing steps are repeated in order to create multiple layers
of the conductive film. The Examiner asserts Schroder' s example 14
describes the application of multiple conductive carbon layers. (Ans. 47). A
person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected from the
teachings of example 14 that the process of depositing and exposing steps
could have been repeated so as to create multiple layers of the conductive
film. Appellants have not directed us to evidence that establishes repeating
of the depositing and exposing steps does more than the expected creation of
multiple layers of the conductive film. Cf In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671
(CCPA 1960) ("It is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no
patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, and
we are of the opinion that such is not the case here.").
Claim 41
We reverse.
Independent claim 41 describes a method of forming a conductive
layer comprising, inter alia, the "loading concentration of copper oxides in
the fused film does not exceed 30%, wherein the fused film has a resistivity
in a range of about 10-5 ohm-cm to 3 X 10-6 ohm-cm."
32
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
Appellants argue the Examiner has not identified where Schroder
describes the loading concentration of the copper oxide or the resistivity of
the fused film. (App. Br. 76-77).
The Examiner's position for claims 41, 62-66, and 82 is:
[T]he teachings of Schroder et al. (097) clearly suggested
optimization of the photonic process would have been expected
to encompass the range of claim 41. Note that these arguments
are relevant to all of the claims 41, 62-66 & 82, as they all
discuss conductive or the inverse resistive properties of the
resultant copper film after generic exposure ( claim 41 ), or after
photo sintering/photoreduction, claim 62-66 & 82, and are all
encompassed by or overlapping with the teachings suggesting
optimization of values of conductivity to be greater than 1 140th
that of bulk copper; or equivalently the reverse of resistivity
values less than 40 times that of bulk copper (i.e. two different
means of expressing the same electrical property valuation).
(Ans. 49).
The Examiner's position lacks persuasive merit. The suggestion of
optimization of the photonic process without more description does not
suggest the loading concentration of the copper oxide of the deposited film
as required by independent claim 41.
Claim 42
We affirm.
Claim 42 recites that the photosintering textures a surface of a flexible
substrate. Schroder discloses and exemplifies a wide variety of suitable
flexible substrates including polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyester,
polymers, resins, and paper products. (Schroder col. 2, 11. 3-9). Appellants
have not explained why the claimed invention is patentably distinct from
33
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
Schroder's disclosed photosintering process for the disclosed flexible
substrates.
Claim 46
We affirm.
Claim 46 further describes the method of claim 2 by specifying the
fused copper nanoparticle structures have a fused portion between them with
a narrower diameter than the diameter of the copper nanoparticle structures.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has failed to prove a prima facie case of
obviousness in rejecting claim 46. (App. Br. 77).
According to the present Specification, copper particles are fused,
without overheating the substrate, by exposing the particles to an intense but
brief pulse of light from a xenon lamp light source. (Spec. 5, 11. 5-14).
Schroder' s example 14 discloses exposing the particles to a pulse of light
from a xenon lamp source. Appellants have failed to explain why the
conditions of Schroder's example 14 are insufficient to fuse the copper
particles such that they have the structure recited in this claim.
Claim 48
We affirm.
Claim 48 further defines the method of claim 15 by specifying the
solvents utilized to form the solution prior to depositing the film. Appellants
argue the Examiner has not identified where the feature of claim 48 is
described by the cited prior art. (App. Br. 78).
Schroder discloses the photonic curing process includes preparing
formulations by mixing the metal particle materials with various solvents,
34
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
surfactants, and dispersants, and producing patterns with the formulations.
(Schroder col. 10, 11. 28-33). Schroder further describes isopropyl alcohol in
various embodiments. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized the appropriate solvents to form the solution prior to depositing
the film from the teachings of Schroder. Accordingly, Appellants'
arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
Claim 51
We affirm.
Claim 51 further defines the method of claim 16 by specifying the
weight percentage of the dispersing agent added to the solution.
The Examiner determined Schroeder discloses analogous formulations
of silver nanoparticles that comprise carbon as a dispersant. (Final Act. 25).
The Examiner determined that Schroder discloses copper as a suitable
alternative nanoparticle material. The Examiner specifically states:
The examiner further notes that the claimed weight percentage
is employed for dispersants in general, & such concentrations
would have been expected to have been dependent on the
particular dispersant employed & its effectiveness within the
particular formulation.
(Final Act. 25).
The Examiner reasoned that it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to determine the appropriate amount of dispersant to
use in the formulation.
Appellants arguesSchroder's teachings regarding silver nanoparticles
are not relevant to utilizing copper nanoparticles. Appellants conclude that
Schroder's teaching of carbon content in a silver formulation could not have
35
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
analogously been utilized with copper nanoparticle formulations. (App. Br.
78-79).
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. On this
record, one of ordinary skill in this art routinely following the teachings of
Schroder would have reasonably arrived at the claimed weight percentage of
dispersant agent encompassed by claim 51. See, e.g., KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) ("when a patent claims a structure
already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one
element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than
yield a predictable result"); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 567-68 (CCP A
1967) ( express suggestion to interchange methods which achieve the same
or similar results is not necessary to establish obviousness); see also In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-88 (Fed. Cir. 2006); In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d
894, 903---04 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ("For obviousness under§ 103, all that is
required is a reasonable expectation of success." ( citations omitted)); In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981) ("[T]he test [for obviousness] is
what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art."); In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir.
1985) ( skill is presumed on the part of one of ordinary skill in the art); In re
Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969) ("Having established that this
knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely, as put forth
by the solicitor, on a conclusion of obviousness 'from common knowledge
and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any
specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference."').
Schroder discloses the photonic curing process includes preparing
formulations by mixing the metal particle materials with various solvents,
36
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
surfactants, and dispersants, and producing patterns with the formulations.
(Schroder col. 10, 11. 28-33). Appellants have not persuasively disputed that
Schroder describes the suitability of incorporating dispersants in the
nanoparticle formulations. Appellants have also not persuasively disputed,
as presented by the Examiner, that carbon was utilized as a dispersant in
Schroder' s silver nanoparticle formulation. A person of ordinary skill in the
art, in view of the teachings of Schroder, would have recognized the
appropriate amount of dispersing agent to use in nanoparticle formulations.
Appellants have not directed us to evidence that establishes the claimed
amount of dispersant is different from the content normally utilized in such
formulations, nor have Appellants presented or argued that the claimed
amount yields unexpected results. Accordingly, Appellants' arguments are
not persuasive of reversible error.
Claims 58, 59, and 61
We affirm.
Independent claim 5 8 recites a method of forming a conductive layer
"wherein the copper oxides are reduced to metallic copper and molecular
oxygen, wherein the reduction involves an electron transfer from the copper
oxides to the metallic copper." Claim 59 recites a method of forming a
conductive layer by photoreduction of copper oxides in the copper
nanoparticles structures to copper and oxygen. Claim 61 further defines the
method of forming a conductive layer recited in claim 1 by specifying that
the photoreduction involves electron transfer from the copper oxides to
copper.
37
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
Appellants argue the Examiner has not identified where Schroder
describes the reduction of the copper oxides to metallic copper involves an
electron transfer. (App. Br. 79-81 ).
As stated above when addressing independent claim 1, Schroder' s
example 14 describes embodiments where copper with an oxide layer and a
small amount of nano-aluminum was utilized to produce copper having
better conductivity. As such, the formation of the metallic copper would
necessarily include an electron transfer from the copper oxides to the
metallic copper.
Claim 60
We affirm.
Claim 60 further defines the method of claim 59 by specifying the
environment where the photosintering of a portion of the copper
nanoparticle structures occurs. Schroder discloses the photonic curing
process overcomes the limitation of using readily oxidizing and/or reactive
material, such as copper, by allowing the nanomaterials to be processed
without a controlled environment. (Schroder, col. 14, 11. 49---68).
Consequently, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have sufficient skill
to select the appropriate reaction environment, ambient air or inert, for
exposing a portion of the film to light.
Claims 62, 63, and 64
We affirm.
Claims 62, 63, and 64 recite the conductivity or resistivity of the
conductive layer after photosintering.
38
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
Appellants argue that Schroder would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art that the sample achieving conductivity of 1/40 that of
bulk copper was an outlier, and thus achieving values of better than 1/40 of
bulk copper would require undue experimentation and innovation to achieve.
(App. Br. 81-84).
The Examiner found Schroder' s example 14 teaches a conductivity of
1/40 that of bulk copper which would have suggested to a person of ordinary
skill in the art the values required by the claimed invention. (Final Act. 26).
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. "[I]n a
section 103 inquiry, 'the fact that a specific [embodiment] is taught to be
preferred is not controlling, since all disclosures of the prior art, including
unpreferred embodiments, must be considered."' Merck & Co. v. Biocraft
Labs. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In re Lamberti, 545
F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976)). As recognized by Appellants, Schroder
describes an embodiment that achieved a conductivity of 1/40 and, therefore,
a resistivity of 40 times, that of bulk copper. (App. Br. 81). Appellants have
failed to persuasively explain that achieving the conductivity and resistivity
values of the claimed invention would not have resulted from optimization
of the processing conditions as suggested by the Examiner.
Claim 65
We affirm.
Claim 65 further defines the properties of the conductive layer,
specifically the conductive layer has a resistivity in a range of about 10-5-10-
7 ohm-cm. The Examiner determined that Schroder's example 14 suggests
optimizing the conductivity, which would result in a resistivity value in a
39
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
range of about 10-5-10-7 ohm-cm required by the claimed invention. The
Examiner further determines that Schroder' s suggestion of optimization
would result in values of conductivity to be greater than 1140th that of bulk
copper. (Ans. 49).
As recognized by Appellants, Schroder describes an embodiment that
achieved a conductivity of 1/40 that of bulk copper. (App. Br. 81).
Appellants have failed to persuasively explain that achieving the
conductivity and resistivity values of the claimed invention would not have
resulted from optimization of the processing conditions as suggested by the
Examiner. Accordingly, Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of
reversible error.
Claim 66
We affirm.
Claim 66 recites that the conductivity layer has a resistivity of less
than 67 .2 x 1 o-6 ohm-cm. The Examiner determines that Schroder suggests
optimization of the photonic process which would have resulted in
properties that encompass or overlap this claimed range due to the
suggestion of optimization of values of conductivity to be greater than
1140th that of bulk copper; or equivalently the reverse of resistivity values
less than 40 times that of bulk copper. (Ans. 49).
As recognized by Appellants, Schroder describes an embodiment that
achieved a conductivity of 1/40 and, therefore, a resistivity of 40 times, that
of bulk copper. (App. Br. 81). Given that the resistivity of bulk copper is
1.68xl0-6 ohm-cm, which is equivalent to 40 times the resistivity of bulk
copper, Appellants have failed to persuasively explain that achieving the
40
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
conductivity and resistivity values of the claimed invention would not have
resulted from optimization of the processing conditions as suggested by the
Examiner.
Claim 69
We affirm.
Claim 69 further defines the method of forming a conductive layer
recited in claim 1 by specifying that the photoreduction involves electron
transfer from the copper oxides to copper.
Appellants argue the Examiner has not identified where Schroder
describes the reduction of the copper oxides to metallic copper involves an
electron transfer. (App. Br. 85).
As stated above when addressing independent claim 1, Schroder' s
example 14 describes embodiments where copper with an oxide layer and a
small amount of nano-aluminum was utilized to produce copper having
better conductivity. As such, the formation of the metallic copper would
necessarily include an electron transfer from the copper oxides to the
metallic copper. Accordingly, Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of
reversible error.
Claim 72
We affirm.
Claim 72 further defines the method of claim 2 by describing,
"passivating the copper nanoparticles structures prior to the photosintering"
of a portion of the copper nanoparticle structures, wherein the Cu20 in the
passivation layers is photoreduced during fusing.
41
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
Appellants argue the Examiner has not identified where Schroder
describes the reduction of the copper oxides to metallic copper involves an
electron transfer. (App. Br. 85).
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. The
Examiner found that if the passivation oxide layer on the copper
nanoparticles of Schroder does not inherently possess CuO and Cu20, it
would have alternatively been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
employ conventional oxidation means to cause passivation. The Examiner
found this would have included utilizing a strong oxidizing agent that would
reasonably have been expected to produce oxide passivation including the
presence of CuO and Cu20 in the resultant oxide. (Non-Final Act. 17).
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
Claim 76
We affirm.
Claim 7 6 further defines the method of forming a conductive layer
recited in claim 5 by specifying that CuO is transformed by photoreduction
to Cu and Cu20, and the Cu20 migrates away from the area where the
copper nanoparticles are fusing.
Appellants argue the Examiner has not identified where Schroder
describes the features of this claim, relying only on the arguments raised
earlier with regard to this claim. (App. Br. 86).
As stated above when addressing this claim, we indicated that
Appellants' earlier arguments were not persuasive of reversible error.
Accordingly, here, we likewise do not find Appellants' arguments
persuasive of reversible error.
42
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
Claim 78
We affirm.
Appellants argue the Examiner has not addressed the claim
requirement that "the light comprises UV radiation in a wavelength range of
about 100-400 nm that is absorbed by the Cu20 so that it is converted to the
Cu." (App. Br. 86).
The Examiner has cited Pappas for describing xenon flash lamp as
having pulse mode output energy in the 350-500 nm wavelength range
(Pappas p. 114 Jr 2). Xenon flash lamps are known to produce a wide
spectrum of EM radiation from 100-1000nm. 8 Consequently, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the suitable wavelength range
for a xenon flash lamp in Schroder' s process. It would have been obvious to
a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the appropriate wavelength
range for a xenon flash lamp in Schroder' s process, including the claimed
3 50-500 nm wavelength, in the absence of evidence establishing this range
provides unexpected results.
Claim 79
We affirm.
Claim 79 further defines the method of claim 78 by specifying the UV
radiation is absorbed by band gaps in the Cu20 to thereby result in the
conversion to the Cu.
8 See e.g.
https://www.photonics.com/a44487 / A_Guide_to_Selecting_Lamps
43
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
Appellants, when addressing claim 79 in the principal brief, restate
elements from the specific claims and provide the statement that the
Examiner has not specifically addressed these claims on pages 21-27 of the
Final Office Action. (App. Br. 86).
Appellants' statements repeating the elements of the claims do not
amount to substantial arguments. Appellants have failed to persuasively
explain why Schroder's example 14 utilizing a xenon flash lamp for
photoreduction of copper oxides to copper, does not inherently convert Cu20
to Cu via absorption of the UV radiation by band gaps in the Cu20.
Appellants have not persuasively explained how the claimed invention is
patentably distinct from the same method described by Schroder.
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
Claim 80
We affirm.
Independent claim 80 recites a method of forming a conductive layer
"wherein the solution consists of copper nanoparticle structures, a
dispersant, and a vehicle."
Appellants argue the Examiner has not identified where Schroder
describes the reduction of the copper oxides to metallic copper involves an
electron transfer. (App. Br. 87).
Appellants' statements repeating the elements of the claims do not
amount to substantial arguments. Appellants have failed to explain why
Schroder's example 14, which describes embodiments where UV radiation
is utilized for conversion of copper with an oxide layer and a small amount
of nano-aluminum to produce copper having better conductivity, is
44
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
patentably different from the claimed invention. Appellants have not
explained how the claimed invention is patently distinct from the similar
method described by Schroder. Accordingly, Appellants' arguments are not
persuasive of reversible error.
Claim 81
We affirm.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has failed to provide a prima facie
case of obviousness in rejecting claim 81. (App. Br. 87-88).
According to the present Specification, copper particles are fused,
without overheating the substrate, by exposing the particles to an intense but
brief pulse of light from the light source is a xenon lamp. (Spec. 5, 11. 5-14).
Schroder' s example 14 discloses exposing the particles to a pulse of light
from a xenon lamp source. Appellants have failed to explain why the
conditions of Schroder's example 14 are insufficient to fuse the copper
particles. Accordingly, Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of
reversible error.
Claim 82
We affirm.
Claim 82 further defines the method of claim 80 by specifying the
properties of the conductive layer, specifically by reciting that the
conductive layer has a resistivity in a range of about 10-5_
45
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
10-7 ohm-cm. The Examiner determined that Schroder's example 14
suggests optimizing the conductivity, which would result in a resistivity
value in a range of about 10-5-10-7 ohm-cm required by the claimed
invention. The Examiner contends that Schroder suggests optimization of
values of conductivity to be greater than 1140th that of bulk copper. (Ans.
49).
As recognized by Appellants, Schroder describes an embodiment that
achieved a conductivity of 1/40 that of bulk copper. (App. Br. 81).
Appellants have failed to explain that achieving the conductivity and
resistivity values of the claimed invention would not have resulted from
optimization of the processing conditions as suggested by the Examiner.
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
V. Claims 18, 49, 68, 70, 74, 75, and 77 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schroder, Pappas, Lewis, and
further in view Hiroyuki, optionally Hampden-Smith or Jablonski.
The statement of the rejection appears in the January 12, 2015 office
action.
Claim 18
We affirm.
Claim 18 further defines the method of claim 15 by specifying the
viscosity modifying additive is ethylene glycol. Appellants argue
Schroder's example 9 only exemplifies the use of ethylene glycol with silver
nanoparticles, not copper. Appellants further argue the only suggestion to
46
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
utilize ethylene glycol in a solution with copper nanoparticles is provided by
Appellants' disclosure. (App. Br. 89--90).
The Examiner determined that Schroder's example 9 describes the use
of ethylene glycol in the nanoparticle solutions. As set forth above,
Schroder discloses the invention relates to methods for reacting, activating
or centering nano-materials, including silver and copper nanometals.
(Schroder col. 3, 11. 26-36). As such a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have recognized the suitability of utilizing viscosity modifying
additives, including ethylene glycol, in copper nanoparticle solutions.
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
Claim 49
We affirm.
Claim 49 further defines the method of claim 16 by specifying various
suitable dispersing agents. Appellants argue the Examiner has not identified
where the feature of claim 49 is described by the cited prior art. (App. Br.
92-94).
Contrary to Appellants' argument, the Examiner relied on Hiroyucki
to describe suitable dispersing agents. (Non-Final 21-23; Final Act. 27-32;
Ans. 55). Appellants have not appropriately addressed the rejection
presented by the Examiner.
47
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
Claim 68
We affirm.
Claim 68 further defines the method of claim 1 by specifying that a
viscosity of the film deposited on the substrate is about 20 centipoise or less.
According to the Examiner, Hampden-Smith describes properties,
including viscosity and surface tension, for metal nanoparticle dispersions
that are suitable for inkjet application. (Final Act. 31-32). Hampden-Smith
is evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized
that a solution having a viscosity about 20 centipoise or less was suitable for
the inkjet depositing of the solution on a substrate. Appellants have not
directed us to evidence that the claimed viscosity range was previously
unknown or provides unexpected results.
Claim 70
We affirm.
Claim 70 further defines the method of claim 18 by specifying the
volume percentage of the ethylene glycol in the solution is less than 10%.
Appellants have failed to present substantial arguments addressing the
subject matter of claim 70. Appellants have merely repeated the elements of
the claim. (App. Br. 95).
Appellants' statements repeating the elements of the claims do not
amount to substantial arguments. As stated above, based on the teachings of
Schroder, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the
suitability of utilizing viscosity modifying additives, including ethylene
glycol, in copper nanoparticle solutions. A person of ordinary skill in the art
would have recognized the appropriate amount of the ethylene glycol to
48
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
incorporate in the solution for the purpose of modifying viscosity.
Appellants have not directed us to evidence that establishes the claimed
amount of viscosity modifier provides unexpected results. Accordingly,
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
Claims 7 4 and 7 5
We affirm.
Claim 7 4 further defines the method of claim 1 by specifying that the
copper nanoparticle structures have average diameters of greater than 100
nm. Claim 7 5 further defines the method of claim 1 by specifying that the
copper nanocomposite structures of claim 1 have average diameters of about
120 nm.
Appellants argue the cited prior art would not have suggested copper
nanoparticle structures having diameters as specified in claims 7 4 and 7 5.
(App. Br. 97-98).
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. The
disclosure in Schroder's column 3 would have suggested to a person of
ordinary skill in the art copper nanoparticles having a dimension of less than
500 nm. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably
recognized the disclosed particle sizes were for all the metals that were
discussed in column 3. This disclosure would have suggested the suitability
of utilizing copper nanoparticles having the claimed diameter. Appellants
have not directed us to evidence that the claimed particle diameters provide
unexpected results.
49
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
Claim 77
We reverse.
Claim 77 further defines the method of claim 16 and specifies that a
loading concentration of the copper nanoparticle structures in the solution is
about 1 Oo/o-50%, and wherein the dispersant comprises hexylamine in a
loading concentration in the solution of about 1 o/o-30%.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has failed to address the recitation
that the dispersant is hexylamine in an amount as recited in this claim (App.
Br. 100). This argument is persuasive of reversible error. The Examiner has
not identified prior art that describes or suggest the dispersant comprises
hexylamine in a loading concentration in the solution of about 1 o/o-30% as
required by claim 77. Consequently, we reverse the rejection of claim 77.
VI. Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 11, 14--16, 18, 21-23, 34, 39-42, 46, 48-
51, 58---66, 69, 72-74, and 76-82 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kodas, Schroder, Pappas, and Lewis.
This rejection relies on the combination of Schroder, Pappas, and
Lewis and the newly added reference Kodas. According to the Examiner
"Kodas et al. ( 666) can no longer be considered to necessarily or inherently
read on the claimed process, as light being absorbed cannot necessarily be
said to be causing any photoreduction considering the teachings in Kodas et
al. (666) alone." (Final Act. 33). Consequently, based on the Examiner's
statement this rejection is based on the same prior art that was previously
discussed. We have addressed the merits of all of the rejected claims except
claim 73 above when discussing the combination of Schroder, Pappas, and
50
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
Lewis. Consequently, we will limit our discussion to claim 73 that was not
previously addressed.
Claim 73
We reverse.
Claim 73 further defines the method of claim 14 by specifying the
solution comprises hexylamine. Similarly to claim 77 above, Appellants
argue that the Examiner has failed to address the recitation that the
dispersant is hexylamine (App. Br. 100, 126). This argument is persuasive
of reversible error. The Examiner has not identified prior art that describes
or suggest the dispersant comprises hexylamine. Consequently, we reverse
the rejection of claim 73.
VII. Claims 23, 40, 46, 48-50, 58, 74 and 75 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kodas, Schroder, Pappas, and
Lewis and further in view of V anheusden.
This rejection relies on the combination of Schroder, Pappas, and
Lewis, Kodas and the newly added reference, Vanheusden. We have
addressed the merits of claims 40, 46, 48, 49, 58, 74, and 75 above when
discussing the combination of Schroder, Pappas, and Lewis. Consequently,
we will limit our discussion to claims 23 and 50 that were not previously
addressed.
51
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
Claim 23
We affirm.
Claim 23 further defines the method of claim 1 by specifying that the
substrate is a fiber. The application of metallic coatings to various substrates
including fibers was known to persons of ordinary skill in the art.
(Vanheusden ,r 257). According to the Specification, various techniques can
be used to coat the fiber including immersing the fiber into the nano ink
formulation or spraying the ink formulation onto the fiber. (Spec. 42--43).
Schroder discloses similar techniques can be utilized for application of the
metallic nanoparticles to the substrate. (Schroder col. 4, 11. 34--39). A
person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that
metallic nanoparticles were suitable for application to a fiber substrate.
Claim 50
We affirm.
Claim 50 further defines the method of claim 16 by specifying the
dispersant agent is selected from the group consisting of a composition of
alkyloammonium salt of a copolymer with acidic groups, a composition of
phosphoric acid plus phosphoric acid polyester, and styrene maleic
anhydride copolymer.
Contrary to Appellants argument, the Examiner relied on
Vanheusden's disclosureindicating that styrene maleic anhydride acts as a
dispersant. (Final Act. 50-51; Ans. 81-82). Appellants have not
appropriately addressed the rejection presented by the Examiner.
52
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
VIII. Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 11, 14--16, 18, 22-30, 34, 38--42, 46, 48-
51, 54, 55, 58---67, 69, and 72-82 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kodas, Schroder, Pappas, Lewis, Vanheusden in
view of additional secondary references.
This rejection relies on the combination of Schroder, Pappas, and
Lewis, Kodas, and the newly added reference Vanheusden. We have
addressed the merits of all of the rejected claims except claims 24--30, 54,
55, and 67 above when discussing the combination of Schroder, Pappas, and
Lewis. Consequently, we will limit our discussion to claims 24--30, 54, 55,
and 67 that were not previously addressed.
The statement of the rejection appears in the January 12, 2015 Final
Action, pages 45-52.
The Examiner found Vanheusden describes a process for depositing a
solution of metal nanoparticles on a substrate. The Examiner found
Vanheusden describes the need for forming electrical conductors utilizing
high-volume printing techniques such as reel-to-reel printing. (Final Act.
45--46; Ans. 85-86; Vanheusden ,r,r 262-263). The Examiner found
Vanheusden discloses processing techniques that may employ lamp or laser
light sources for drying and thermally curing/sintering to produce conductive
coatings from metal nanoparticle containing metallic inks. (Final Act. 45-
46; Ans. 86; Vanheusden ,r,r 260-262). Vanheusden describes the metallic
ink can also be deposited by dip-coating or spin-coating, or by pen
dispensing onto rod or fiber type substrates. (Vanheusden ,r 257).
53
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
Claim 24
We affirm.
Claim 24 recites a method of forming a conductive film on a fiber in a
roll-to-roll process comprising coating the fiber with a metal nanoparticle
ink solution, drying the metal nanoparticle ink solution on the fiber to form a
non-conductive film on the fiber, and exposing at least a portion of the non-
conductive film to light to make the film conductive.
Appellants argue the reel-to-reel references in Vanheusden refer to
reel-to-reel printing of entire substrates, and not merely a fiber. (App. Br.
153).
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
Appellants have not disputed that reel-to-reel coating techniques are known
to persons of ordinary skill in the art. Vanheusden discloses this technique
is suitable for coating a variety of substrates including fiber substrates. A
person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that a
fiber could have been coated utilizing these known techniques. See, e.g.,
KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 ("when a patent claims a structure already known in
the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for
another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a
predictable result"); Siebentritt, 372 F.2d at 567---68 (express suggestion to
interchange methods which achieve the same or similar results is not
necessary to establish obviousness); see also Kahn, 441 F.3d at 985-88;
O'Farrell, 853 F.2d at 903---04 ("For obviousness under§ 103, all that is
required is a reasonable expectation of success." (citations omitted)); Keller,
642 F.2d at 425 ("[T]he test [for obviousness] is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
54
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
in the art."); Sovish, 769 F.2d at 743 (skill is presumed on the part of one of
ordinary skill in the art); Bozek, 416 F.2d at 1390 ("Having established that
this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely, as put
forth by the solicitor, on a conclusion of obviousness 'from common
knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art
without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference."').
Claim 25
We affirm.
Claim 25 further defines the invention of claim 24 by specifying
dispensing the fiber from a spool.
Appellants argue the reel-to-reel process described by Vanheusden
pertains to processing of flat substrates, and would not have suggested
dispensing from a spool the fiber upon which the metallic ink is deposited.
(App. Br. 153-154).
As set forth above, Vanheusden discloses this reel-to-reel process is
suitable for coating a variety of substrates including fiber substrates. A
person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that a
fiber could have been coated utilizing these known techniques.
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
55
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
Claim 26
We affirm.
Claim 26 further defines the invention of claim 24 by specifying the
fiber is immersed in a metal nanoparticles bath.
Appellants argue Vanheusden's disclosure in paragraph 257 would
not have led an ordinary artisan to dip a fiber into a bath of a nanoparticle
ink as required by the claimed invention. (App. Br. 154).
Appellants' argument is not persuasive. As set forth above, a person
of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that a fiber could
have been coated utilizing known techniques. Appellants have not directed
us to evidence that immersion coating techniques for fibers produce
unexpected results.
Claim 27
We affirm.
Claim 27 further defines the invention of claim 24 by specifying the
fiber is coated by spraying the metallic nanoparticles ink solution onto the
fiber.
Appellants, when addressing claim 2 7 in the principal brief, restate
elements from the specific claims and provide the statement that the
Examiner has not specifically addressed this claim on pages 45-52 of the
Final Office Action. (App. Br. 154--155).
Appellants' statements repeating the elements of the claims do not
amount to substantial arguments. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
56
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
have reasonably expected from the teachings of Vanheusden the suitability
of spray application of coatings to a fiber in a reel-to-reel process.
Claim 28
We affirm.
Claim 28 further defines the invention of claim 24 by specifying
passing the fiber through a drying station to dry the ink.
Appellants, when addressing claim 2 8 in the principal brief, restate
elements from the specific claims and provide the statement that the
Examiner has not specifically addressed this claim on pages 45-52 of the
Final Office Action. (App. Br. 155).
Appellants' statements repeating the elements of the claims do not
amount to substantial arguments. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
have reasonably expected from the teachings of Vanheusden the suitability
of utilizing a drying station to dry coatings to a fiber in a reel-to-reel process.
Claims 29 and 30
We affirm.
Claim 29 further defines the invention of claim 24 by specifying
passing the fiber through a photosintering station to thereby photosinter the
portion of the non-conductive film. Claim 30 further defines the invention
of claim 29 by specifying the photosintering station comprises activating one
or more flashlamps.
Appellants, when addressing claims 29 and 30 in the principal brief,
restate elements from the specific claims and provide the statement that the
57
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
Examiner has not specifically addressed these claims on pages 45-52 of the
Final Office Action. (App. Br. 155).
Appellants' statements repeating the elements of the claims do not
amount to substantial arguments. Appellants have failed to address the
Examiner's discussion of Vanheusden's processing techniques regarding the
use of lamp or laser light sources for drying and thermally curing/sintering
to produce conductive coatings from metal nanoparticle containing metallic
inks. (Final Act. 45--46; Ans. 86; Vanheusden ,r,r 260-262). A person of
ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected from the teachings
of Vanheusden the suitability of passing a fiber through a photosintering
station to thereby photosinter the portion of the non-conductive film.
Claim 54
We affirm.
Claim 54 further defines the method of claim 29 by specifying "the
metal copper nanoparticle ink solution comprises copper and copper oxides,
wherein the copper oxides comprise Cu20."
Appellants, when addressing claim 54 in the principal brief, restate
elements from the specific claims and provide the statement that the
Examiner has not specifically addressed this claim on pages 45-52 of the
Final Office Action. (App. Br. 158).
Appellants' arguments not persuasive of reversible error. As set forth
above, the Examiner found that if the passivation oxide layer on the copper
nanoparticles of Schroder does not inherently possess CuO and Cu20,
alternatively it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
employ conventional oxidation means to cause passivation. The Examiner
58
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
found this would have included utilizing a strong oxidizing agent that would
reasonably have been expected to produce oxide passivation including the
presence of CuO and Cu20 in the resultant oxide. Accordingly, Appellants'
arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
Claim 55
We affirm.
Claim 5 5 further defines the method of claim 1 by specifying the
copper nanoparticle structures comprise elements of copper nanoparticles.
Appellants, when addressing claim 5 5 in the principal brief, restate
elements from the specific claims and provide the statement that the
Examiner has not specifically addressed this claim on pages 45-52 of the
office action. (App. Br. 159).
Appellants' arguments not persuasive of reversible error. As set forth
above, the Examiner found that Schroder describes coating solutions
comprising copper nanoparticles. Appellants have failed to persuasively
explain why the Examiner's reliance upon Schroder is in error.
Claim 67
We affirm.
Claim 67 further defines the method of claim 24 by specifying the ink
solution comprises nanoparticles selected from the group consisting of
nickel, chromium, copper, and combinations thereof.
Appellants, when addressing claim 67 in the principal brief, restate
elements from the specific claims and provide the statement that the
59
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
Examiner has not specifically addressed this claim on pages 45-52 of the
Final Office Action. (App. Br. 163).
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. As set
forth above, the Examiner found that Schroder describes ink nanoparticle
solutions comprising a variety of suitable metals including copper
nanoparticles. (Schroder col. 3, 11. 26-36). Appellants have failed to
persuasively explain why the Examiner's reliance upon Schroder is in error.
IX. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kodas, Schroder, Pappas, Lewis, Vanheusden in view of
Fujimoto or Hill or Axtell.
Claim 21
We reverse.
Claim 21 further defines the method of claim 1 by specifying that the
film is exposed to the light through a backside of the substrate.
The Examiner found Schroder, Kodas, and Vanheusden do not teach
exposing the deposited coating material through the backside of the
substrate. The Examiner determined that Schroder discloses that the
substrate does not absorb applied radiation, and both Kodas and Vanheusden
contemplate substrate materials that may be transparent to various
wavelengths of light (i.e., various polymers or glass). (Final Act. 53). The
Examiner cited Fujimoto, Hill, and Axtell as evidence that establishes it was
old and well-known in the radiation art, that one may treat coatings applied
to a transparent substrate through the substrate. (Id.)
60
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
Appellants argue that the fact that Schroder discloses that its substrate
does not absorb radiation would not have suggested that the substrate is
transparent, nor would it have suggested that radiation may be exposed
through the substrate in order to photosinter/photoreduce copper
nanoparticle structures on that substrate. Appellants also argue the fact that
Kodas and Vanheusden may disclose transparent substrates to certain
wavelengths of light would not have suggested projecting the light energy
through the substrate to expose/irradiate conductive films on those
substrates. Appellants argue Fujimoto, Hill, and Axtell references do not
disclose that their processes could have been utilized to perform a
photosintering/photoreduction process through a transparent substrate in
order to expose copper nanoparticle structures on that substrate to such a
photosintering/photoreduction light. (App. Br. 168-169).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not established that
the prior art would have suggested performing a
photosintering/photoreduction process through a transparent substrate.
X. Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14--16, 18, 21-30, 34, 39-42, 46, 48-51, 54,
55, 58---67, 69, and 72-82 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over the
'986 Application in view of Kodas, Schroder, Pappas, Lewis, Vanheusden,
and Axtell.
We reverse.
Appellants argue the Examiner has failed to adequately explain how
any of the rejected claims' specific limitations would have been obvious in
61
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
view of claims 1-12 and 23-28 of the '986 application in combination with
Schroder, Kodas, Vanheusden, Axtell, or their combination. (App. Br. 173).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not properly
explained how any of the rejected claims' specific limitations would have
been obvious in view of claims 1-12 and 23-28 of the '986 application in
combination with Schroder, Kodas, Vanheusden, Axtell, or their
combination.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness-type double
patenting rejection.
XI. Claims 1, 2, 5, 14, 15, 34, 46, 58, 59, 61, 69, 72, 76, 80, and 81 stand
rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-16 of Li.
We reverse.
Appellants argue the Examiner has failed to adequately explain how
any of the rejected claims' specific limitations would have been obvious in
view of claims 1-16 of Li. (App. Br. 178).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not properly
explained how any of the rejected claims' specific limitations would have
been obvious in view of claims 1-16 of Li.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness-type double
patenting rejection.
XII. Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 11, 14--16, 18, 21-30, 34, 38--42, 46, 48-51, 54,
55, 58---67, 69, and 72-82 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double
62
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-13 and 17-25 ofYaniv '197 in view
of Kodas, Schroder, Pappas, Lewis, Vanheusden, and Axtell.
We reverse.
Appellants argue the Examiner has failed to adequately explain how
any of the rejected claims' specific limitations would have been obvious in
view of claims 1-16 of the Li application in combination with Schroder,
Pappas, Lewis, Kodas, Vanheusden, Axtell, or their combination. (App. Br.
178).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not properly
explained how any of the rejected claims' specific limitations would have
been obvious in view of claims 1-16 of the Li application in combination
with Schroder, Pappas, Lewis, Kodas, Vanheusden, Axtell, or their
combination.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness-type double
patenting rejection.
XIII. Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 11, 14--16, 18, 21-30, 34, 38--42, 46, 48-51, 54,
55, 58---67, 69, and 72-82 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double
patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-14 ofYaniv '979 in view ofKodas,
Schroder, Pappas, Lewis, Vanheusden, and Axtell.
We reverse.
Appellants argue the Examiner has failed to adequately explain how
any of the rejected claims' specific limitations would have been obvious in
view of claims 1-16 of the Li application in combination with Schroder,
Pappas, Lewis, Kodas, Vanheusden, Axtell, or their combination. (App. Br.
178).
63
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not properly
explained how any of the rejected claims' specific limitations would have
been obvious in view of claims 1-16 of the Li application in combination
with Schroder, Pappas, Lewis, Kodas, Vanheusden, Axtell, or their
combination.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness-type double
patenting rejection.
XIV. Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 11, 14--16, 18, 21-30, 34, 38--42, 46, 48-51, 54,
55, 58---67, 69, and 72-82 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double
patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-16 of Li in view of Kodas,
Schroder, Pappas, Lewis, Vanheusden, and Axtell.
We reverse.
Appellants argue the Examiner has failed to adequately explain how
any of the rejected claims' specific limitations would have been obvious in
view of claims 1-16 of the Li application in combination with Schroder,
Pappas, Lewis, Kodas, Vanheusden, Axtell, or their combination. (App. Br.
178).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not properly
explained how any of the rejected claims' specific limitations would have
been obvious in view of claims 1-16 of the Li application in combination
with Schroder, Pappas, Lewis, Kodas, Vanheusden, Axtell, or their
combination ..
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness-type double
patenting rejection.
64
Appeal 2016-003786
Application 12/121,260
CONCLUSION
The appealed rejections are affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
65