Ex Parte Orita et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2018

13990641 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/990,641 05/30/2013 Hiroyuki Orita
22850 7590 03/28/2018
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
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.
416260US99PCT 6792
EXAMINER
KITT, STEPHEN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1717
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2018 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):
patentdocket@oblon.com
oblonpat@oblon.com
tfarrell@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HIROYUKI ORITA, TAKAHIRO SHIRAHATA, and
AK.IO YOSHIDA
Appeal2017-005976
Application 13/990,641
Technology Center 1700
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-11 in the above-identified
application. 2 We have authority pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Toshiba Mitsubishi-
Electric Industrial Systems Corporation. Appeal Brief 2, May 10, 2016
[hereinafter Appeal Br.].
2 See Appeal Br. 1-2; see also Final Office Action, Nov. 18, 2015
[hereinafter Final Action]; Examiner's Answer, Dec. 19, 2016 [hereinafter
Answer]; Reply Brief, Jan. 27, 2017 [hereinafter Reply Br.].
Appeal2017-005976
Application 13/990,641
BACKGROUND
Appellants' invention relates to "a film formation device that is able to
form a thin film on a substrate by jetting a mist to the substrate."
Specification 1, May 30, 2013. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is as
follows:
1. A film formation device comprising:
a mist generator that generates a mist of a raw material of
a film to be formed; and
a mist jet nozzle that jets the mist to a substrate on which
a film is to be formed,
the mist jet nozzle comprising:
a main body having a hollow portion;
a mist supply port formed in the main body and
configured to supply the mist to the inside of the hollow
portion;
a first spout formed in the main body and
configured to jet the mist in the hollow portion to the
outside;
a carrier gas supply port formed in the main body
and configured to supply a carrier gas to the inside of the
hollow portion, the carrier gas transporting the mist to the
first spout; and
a shower plate arranged within the hollow portion
and having a plurality of holes formed therein,
wherein
the hollow portion comprises a first space and a second
space divided by the shower plate,
the first space is connected to the carrier gas supply port,
the second space is connected to the first spout,
the mist supply port is formed in the main body so as to
be connected to the second space, and
a total of opening areas of the plurality of holes formed in
the shower plate is smaller than a total of an opening area of the
carrier gas supply port.
2
Appeal2017-005976
Application 13/990,641
Claims App. 3 2 (emphasis of key limitation added).
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
1. Claims 1, 3, 4, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Sun. 4 See Answer 2-5; see also Final Action 2-5
(original rejection including claim 2); Advisory Action 2, Feb., 24, 2016
(acknowledging cancellation of claim 2 and the incorporation of its
limitations into claim 1 ).
2. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sun in view of Anderson. 5 See Answer 5---6; see also
Final Action 6.
3 Appeal Brief, Sept. 1, 2016 (attaching substitute claims appendix)
[hereinafter Claim App.].
4 Sun et al., US 6,349,668 B 1 (issued Feb. 26, 2002).
5 Anderson et al., US 2008/0292810 Al (published Nov. 27, 2008).
3
Appeal2017-005976
Application 13/990,641
DISCUSSION
Figure 2 of Sun is reproduced below:
FIG .. 2
! '""" ~'- ~'"' """' "'"" """ '""" "'"'' ------ --~ - ·- - - """ """
!
! .------~-.34
/'
! L-:~i~\~;~·;+~~;'~§~~~~~w~--~~;:~~~]""' ... ,.,1
~ ~
Sun's Figure 2 depicts an ionized gas atomizer for producing charged
droplets. Sun 5:66-67. Chamber 36 houses corona ionizer electrode 32
connected to high voltage DC power supply 34. Id. at 5:67-6:8. Chamber
36 contains, at its left end, an inlet from pressurized gas source 38, and at the
chamber's right end there is an orifice ( 40) through orifice plate 42, through
which a high velocity ionized gas jet passes into passageway 45. Id. at 6:6-
12. In passageway 45, the high velocity ionized gas atomizes a liquid from
liquid source 46, thus producing electrically charged aerosol droplets. See
id. at 6:33--49. In another embodiment, the liquid is already atomized before
exposure to the high velocity ionized gas jet. See id. at 7:45--60; Fig. 5. Sun
4
Appeal2017-005976
Application 13/990,641
also separately discloses a nozzle for depositing the charged aerosol droplets
on a substrate. See id. at 10:28-58; Fig. 11.
The Examiner notes that Sun fails to explicitly disclose that the orifice
plate ( 42) is a shower plate with a plurality of holes as recited in claim 1.
Final Action 3. However, the Examiner determines that in the context of the
deposition nozzle (corresponding to the "first spout" in claim 1 ), Sun teaches
that one may replace a single nozzle with a shower plate with multiple
orifices. Id. According to the Examiner, it would also have been obvious to
make this replacement with respect to orifice plate 42 in order to achieve a
high flow rate. Id. (citing Sun 6:8-12 (stating that orifice 40 produces a high
velocity ionized gas jet into passageway 45)).
Appellants argue that Sun's teachings regarding the deposition nozzle
are not applicable to orifice plate 42, because the deposition nozzle concerns
a downstream part of the system after the aerosol has formed, whereas
orifice plate 42 is designed for forming the aerosol. See Appeal Br. 6.
Furthermore, Appellants argue that orifice 40 is aligned with end 3 7 A of
electrode needle 37, and orifice plate 42 cannot simply be replaced by a
showerhead without defeating the purpose of that alignment. See id. at 6-7;
Reply Br. 2-3.
We agree with Appellants. Sun teaches replacing a deposition nozzle
with a deposition showerhead in order to produce "high aerosol flow and
high deposition rates that are needed for the commercial production of fiat
panels." Sun 11 :3-5. However, the purpose of Sun's orifice plate 42 in
Figure 2 is to produce a high velocity ionized gas jet, which creates an
aspiration effect to atomize the liquid and charge the aerosol particles. See
id. at 6:33--49. The Examiner has not shown that a skilled artisan would
5
Appeal2017-005976
Application 13/990,641
have considered Sun's teachings about aerosolfiaw rate at the deposition
nozzle to be applicable to increasing velocity through orifice plate 42. Nor
has the Examiner shown that increasing flow rate through Sun's orifice plate
42, by adding more holes, would have increased the velocity of the ionized
gas jets emanating from each hole.
For the above reasons, the Examiner has not shown that a person of
ordinary skill in the art, at the time of Appellants' invention, would have had
reason to modify Sun's orifice 42 to incorporate Sun's further teachings
about using a deposition showerhead in place of a deposition nozzle.
Therefore, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sun, and we likewise reverse the
rejection of claims 3, 4, and 7-11 which depend from claim 1. Because the
Examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 6 do not remedy this error, we also
reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Anderson.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
6