Ex Parte Rabinovich

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 25, 2019

14196741 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
14/196,741
11943 7590
O""Shea Getz P.C.
FILING DATE
03/04/2014
02/27/2019
10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205
Farmington, CT 06032
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Albert Rabinovich
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.
61310US02
(1213-21 l 16AA)
CONFIRMATION NO.
1344
EXAMINER
BRAYTON, JOHN JOSEPH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1794
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
uspto@osheagetz.com
shenry@osheagetz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALBERT RABINOVICH 1
Appeal2017---011093
Application 14/196,741
Technology Center 1700
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United Techs. Corp, App.
Br. 3.
Appeal2017---011093
Application 14/196,741
Appellant requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § I34(a) of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 17-20. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant's subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below:
1. A stinger for a cathodic arc vapor deposition system
compnsmg:
a head with a cathode end, which cathode end has a
reduced area contact interface defined by an inner wall and an
outer wall that are spaced apart from one another, and which
walls extend out from the cathode end, and which inner wall
defines a non-contact area of the cathode end,
wherein said head defines a first cross-sectional area,
said reduced area contact interface defines a second cross-
sectional area less than said first cross-sectional area,
wherein said reduced area contact interface isolates an
electrical conductor from a cathode.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Beers
Bergmann
Sunthankar
Schutze
Beers
us 5,932,078
US 6,207,029 B 1
US 2003/0230483 Al
US 2005/0121321 Al
US 8,241,468 B2
THE REJECTIONS
Aug. 3, 1999
Mar. 27, 2001
Dec. 18, 2003
June 19, 2005
Aug. 14, 2012
1. Claims 1, 9, 11, 17 and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Schutze.
2
Appeal2017---011093
Application 14/196,741
2. Claims 1, 7, 11, 13, and 17-19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Sunthankar.
3. Claim 6 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schutze as applied to claim 1 above, and further in
view of Beers (US 8,241,468 B2).
4. Claim 6 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sunthankar as applied to claim 1 above, and further
in view of Beers (US 8,241,468 B2).
5. Claims 7, 13 and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Schutze as applied to claims 1, 11 and 1 7
above, and further in view of Beers (US 8,241,468 B2) and
Sunthankar.
6. Claim 9 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sunthankar as applied to claim 1 above, and further
in view of Schutze.
7. Claim 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schutze as applied to claim 11 above, and further in
view of Beers (US 5,932,078) and Bergmann.
8. Claim 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sunthankar as applied to claim 11 above, and
further in view of Beers (US 5,932,078) and Bergmann.
9. Claim 20 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schutze as applied to claim 1 above, and further in
view of Beers (US 5,932,078).
3
Appeal2017---011093
Application 14/196,741
ANALYSIS
For purposes of this appeal, we address the argued claims separately,
the remaining claims stand or fall with the argued claims, consistent with 37
C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(1)(iv)(2017).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010) (precedential),
cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
( citation omitted) ("[I]t has long been the Board's practice to require an
applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejections."). After
considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant's
arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error.
Thus, we affirm the Examiner's rejections for the reasons expressed in the
Final Office Action and the Answer, with the following emphasis.
Rejection 1
We consider claims 1 and 9 in this rejection.
With regard to claim 1, Appellant argues that Schutze is directed to an
igniter, which is not the stinger recited by claim 1. Appeal Br. 8.
The Examiner refers to the Specification and states that the
Specification describes a stinger as being formed by head 52 and shaft 54
(Figure 2, ,r [0034]) and is used to retain the cathode 18 on a fixed support (i-f
[0031 ]). Ans. 21. The Examiner states that when this arrangement is
compared to the igniter in Schutze formed by tip 10 and finger 1,
one understands that they are of similar structure. Ans. 21. The Examiner
states that Schutze's tip 10 is connected to a power supply 3 and contacts
4
Appeal2017---011093
Application 14/196,741
and retains target cathode 9. The Examiner states that the ignition finger of
Schutze is the stinger of claim 1 because it functions the same as a stinger
and meets all the structural elements required by claim 1. The Examiner
concludes that therefore the structure and function leads one to conclude that
the stinger of claim 1 is the ignition finger taught by Schulze. Ans. 21.
The Examiner further states there is no prior art in the record that defines a
stinger as being opposite an igniter. Ans, 21. The Examiner states that
Appellant does not refer to such evidence. Id. The Examiner states that
without any evidence, Appellant's positon is unsupported. We agree.
Absent such supporting evidence, Appellant's assertion amounts to a mere
conclusory statement that is entitled to little, if any, probative weight. See,
e.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
With regard to claim 9, Appellant argues that claim 9 recites" ...
wherein said head is circular in cross-section." Appellant argues that the
Office Action at page 3, cites the tip 10 of Schutze as allegedly being
circular in cross-section. Figure 2 of Schutze, showing the tip 10, is
reproduced on page 9 of the Appeal Brief. Appellant argues that as shown
in Figure 2 of Schutze therein, the tip 10 converges to a point where the tip
interfaces to the target surface 20; compare with Figures 2--4 of the present
application (illustrating head 52, reduced area contact interface 68). In
short, the geometrical shape/profile of the tip 10 shown in Schutze is not
circular in cross-section as recited in claim 9. In Schutze (i-f [0026]), the tip
10 is "needle-shaped" due to the resistivity of the materials used.
We agree with the Examiner's stated response made on page 22 of the
Answer. Therein, the Examiner explains that Schutze describes tip 10 as
5
Appeal2017---011093
Application 14/196,741
having a diameter of 3 mm (pg. 2, ,r [0025]). The Examiner states that
having a diameter indicates that tip 10 has a circular cross section.
Notably, no Reply Brief is of record in reply to these points made by
the Examiner. These findings by the Examiner are therefore no disputed and
we accept them as facts. See In re Kunzmann, 326 F.2d 424,425 n.3 (CCPA
1964).
In view of the above, we find that the preponderance of evidence
supports the Examiner's findings and conclusion that the subject matter of
Appellants' claims is unpatentable over the applied art. Accordingly, we
sustain Rejection 1. We also sustain Rejections 3, 5, 7, and 9 for the same
reasons (Appellant relies upon the same arguments presented for Rejection 1
for these rejections (Appeal Br. 9-13).
Rejection 2
In a similar fashion as discussed with regard to the Schulze
anticipation rejection regarding claim 1, Appellant argues that Sunthankar's
arc striker is an igniter and not the stinger of claim 1.
The Examiner states that Appellant presents an unsupported
conclusion as to why Sunthanker' s arc striker is an igniter and not the
stinger of claim 1. Ans. 23. The Examiner states that Sunthanker's arc
striker (ceramic block 62), functions the same way, is of the same form, and
meets each and every structural element of claim 1. Id. No reply brief is of
record to address these points made by the Examiner.
Appellant also argues that Sunthankar does not teach a reduction in
the contact between the ceramic block and the target 10. Appeal Br. 10.
6
Appeal2017---011093
Application 14/196,741
It is the Examiner's position that a reduction in the contact between
the ceramic block and the target is not required by the claims. Ans. 24. The
Examiner explains that what is claimed is "wherein said head defines a first
cross sectional area, said reduced area contact interface defines a second
cross section area less than said first cross section area". Id. The Examiner
states that thus there is not a requirement that the reduced area contact
interface actually contacts the cathode. In light of this, the Examiner
explains that Sunthankar discloses a block 62 in Figure 6, and when viewed
in three dimensions, Sunthankar's block 62 has six sides. Ans. 24. The
Examiner states that the reduced area contact interface is the area bounded
by the inner and outer wall. The Examiner states that the inner and
outer walls are perpendicular to the page on which the figure 6 is printed,
and the area bounded by these sides is parallel to this page. The Examiner
states that since this area is less than the cathode end, it reads on claim 1.
Therefore, Sunthankar teaches the structure of claim 1. We agree and note
that no reply brief has been filed in reply to this explanation.
In view of the above, we affirm Rejection 2. We also affirm
Rejections 4, 6, and 8 for the same reasons (Appellant relies upon the same
arguments presented for Rejection 2, for these rejections (Appeal Br. 11-
13).
DECISION
Each rejection is affirmed.
7
Appeal2017---011093
Application 14/196,741
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8