Ex Parte Loucks et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 8, 2016

13406182 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/406,182 02/27/2012
22878 7590 08/10/2016
Agilent Technologies, Inc. in care of:
CPA Global
P. 0. Box 52050
Minneapolis, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Harvey D. Loucks JR.
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.
20110082-02 1961
EXAMINER
SMITH, DAVIDE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2881
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/10/2016 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):
IPOPS.LEGAL@agilent.com
Agilentdocketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte HARVEYD. LOUCKS JR., JAMES L. BERTSCH,
MICHAEL UGAROV, WILLIAM E. BARRY,
and YEVGENY KAPLUN
Appeal2014-007120
Application 13/406,182 1
Technology Center 2800
Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's decision finally rejecting as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), claim 13 over Chemushevich2 in view of Alcott, 3 and claims 15
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Agilent Technologies,
Inc. Br. 3.
2 US 2002/0030159 Al, published March 14, 2002.
3 US 2009/0108197 Al, published April 30, 2009.
Appeal2014-007120
Application 13/406,182
and 16 adding Vidal-de-Miguel. 4 We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.5
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a mass spectrometer system having an ion
source for producing ions, an ion guide for guiding ions, an ion slicer for
blocking ions spaced from an ion beam from passing, and an orthogonal
time of flight analyzer for analyzing ions, wherein the ion slicer includes a
body having a slit through which ions pass, and first and second elongated
blades connected to the body with their edges pointing toward the ion beam
and defining the entrance of the slit. Spec. i-fi-f 11 and 12.
Sole independent claim 13, reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix to the Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
13. A mass spectrometer system comprising:
a) an ion source for producing a ions;
b) a ion guide for guiding said ions;
c) an ion slicer comprising:
i. a body;
ii. a first elongated blade connected to the body; and
iii. a second elongated blade connected to the body;
wherein the ion slicer comprises a slit that extends through said
body through which ions pass and wherein the edges of said first and
second elongated blades define the entrance of said slit and are
pointing towards said ions; and
d) an orthogonal time of flight mass analyzer for analyzing said ions,
4 US 2010/0176290 Al, published July 15, 2010.
5 Our decision refers to Appellants' Specification (Spec.) filed February 27,
2012, Appellants' Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed January 31, 2014, and the
Examiner's Answer (Ans.) delivered April 2, 2014.
2
Appeal2014-007120
Application 13/406,182
wherein said ion slicer blocks ions that have significant distance from
the ion beam axis component from passing from said ion guide to said
orthogonal time of flight mass analyzer.
ANALYSIS
We sustain the above rejections based on the findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments well expressed by the
Examiner in the Answer. The following comments are added for emphasis.
The Examiner finds, without dispute, that Chemushevich teaches a
mass spectrometer system as recited in claim 13, except for an ion slicer
having a pair of elongated blades defining a slit through which ions pass.
Ans. 2-3. 6 The Examiner further finds, without dispute, that Alcott teaches
an ion slicer having a pair of elongated blades defining a slit through which
ions pass. Ans. 3. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to
incorporate Alcott's bladed ion slicer in Chemushevich's device in order to
control sputtering from the ion slicer as Alcott teaches. Id.
Appellants contend that the Examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness because the Examiner has not shown sputtering to
be a problem in Chemushevich's device. Br. 4. Appellants assert that
Alcott is concerned with sputtering because the device is an ion implanter
having a curved design of the mass analyzer, having ions removed by
collision with a wall with an angle almost the same as the ion trajectory.
Br. 5. Appellants also assert that Alcott's ion implanter produces different
types of ions having much higher energy than Chemushevich's analytical
6 The Examiner finds that Chemushevich, Figure 2, appears to show an ion
slicer having a pair of blades attached to a body as recited in claim 13. Ans.
5 (referring to the slanted portions of Chemushevich's slit 28 as the blades).
3
Appeal2014-007120
Application 13/406,182
mass spectrometer. Id. In addition, Appellants assert that Chemushevich
does not have a curved flight tube as shown in Alcott, instead relying on
time of flight for ion separation. Id. Since, according to Appellants,
sputtering would not appear to be a problem for Chemushevich, Appellants
argue that there would be no motivation or reason to incorporate Alcott's ion
slicer into Chemushevich's device. Br. 4, 5.
In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner finds that one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand that any ion beam impinging on a
surface implicitly produces some degree of sputtering which can
contaminate the ion beam. Ans. 5. The Examiner finds that the bladed ion
slicer of Alcott provides a simple means of controlling flow of sputtered ions
away from an ion beam. Id. The Examiner further finds that Alcott not only
teaches control of sputtering off of curved surfaces, but also from flat
surfaces. Id., citing Alcott, i-f 66 ("the idea may be employed on electrodes
that may even face the ion beam.'') Appellants do not dispute these findings;
no Reply Brief has been filed. In addition, Appellants fail to direct our
attention to any evidentiary support for their assertion that Alcott's ion
implanter utilizes different types of ions having much higher energies than
Chemushevich' s mass spectrometer and that these differences result in
significant differences in sputtering that may occur, nor do we find any.
Accordingly, Appellants have not identified reversible error in the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 13. We shall sustain this
rejection of claim 13.
We tum next to the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 15
and 16 over the combination of Chemushevich, Alcott, and Vidal-de-
Miguel. Appellants argue that this rejection should be reversed for the same
4
Appeal2014-007120
Application 13/406,182
arguments discussed above, further asserting that Vidal-de-Miguel fails to
remedy the same alleged deficiency in the combination of Chemushevich
and Alcott that we did not find persuasive. Thus, for the same reasons given
above, we do not find those arguments persuasive of reversible error. We
shall, therefore, also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 15 and 16.
DECISION
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and
in the Answer, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 13, 15, and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chemushevich and Alcott,
alone or further combined with Vidal-de-Miguel, is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
5