Ex Parte Sanderson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 26, 2018

13426689 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/426,689 03/22/2012
1678 7590 11/27/2018
MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC
FOUR SEA GA TE - EIGHTH FLOOR
TOLEDO, OH 43604
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kevin D. Sanderson
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.
1-20679 9309
EXAMINER
LAZORCIK, JASON L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1741
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/27/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEVIN D. SANDERSON, MICHEL J. SOUBEYRAND,
DOUGLAS M. NELSON, Y ASUNORI SETO,
and KEIKO TSURI
Appeal2018-001727
Application 13/426,689 1
Technology Center 1700
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-24.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 2
1 Appellants identify the real parties in interest as Pilkington North America,
which is a subsidiary of Pilkington Group Limited, which is a subsidiary of
Nippon Sheet Glass Ltd, Japan. Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) 2, filed June 26,
2017.
2 Our Decision additionally refers to the Specification (Spec.) filed March
22, 2012, the Final Office Action (Final Act.) dated October 24, 2016, and
the Examiner's Answer (Ans.) dated October 4, 2017.
Appeal2018-001727
Application 13/426,689
We AFFIRM.
The subject matter on appeal relates to chemical vapor deposition
processes for depositing a zinc oxide coating (see, e.g., claims 1, 19, and
21 ). The Inventors disclose a chemical vapor process for depositing a zinc
coating including, among other things, providing a coating apparatus above
a glass substrate and directing gaseous precursor compounds through two or
more separate flow pathways so the precursor compounds are discharged
from outlet openings of the coating apparatus and mixed to form a zinc
oxide coating on a surface of the glass substrate. Spec. 5:2-16. According
to the Inventors, such a delay in mixing the precursor compounds avoids
premature reaction between the precursor compounds before they reach the
glass substrate. Id. 15: 10-17.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. Limitations at issue are italicized.
1. A chemical vapor deposition process for depositing a
zinc oxide coating comprising:
providing a float glass ribbon at a temperature above
1112°F (600°C), wherein the float glass ribbon comprises a
surface to be coated;
providing a coating apparatus above the float glass
ribbon, wherein the coating apparatus comprises two or more
separate flow pathways, each flow pathway providing
communication between an inlet opening and an outlet opening,
and one or more flow conditioners disposed in each of the flow
pathways;
providing gaseous precursor compounds including a
gaseous zinc-containing compound, a gaseous oxygen-
containing compound, and a gaseous acetonate compound and
one or more inert gases;
introducing the gaseous precursor compounds and the
one or more inert gases as two or more streams into the inlet
openings;
2
Appeal2018-001727
Application 13/426,689
directing the streams through the two or more separate
flow pathways, and
discharging the streams from the outlet openings of the
coating apparatus, wherein the two or more streams are kept
separate until discharged from the coating apparatus above the
surface of the glass substrate, and wherein mixing of the
gaseous precursor compounds and one or more inert gases
occurs to form a zinc oxide coating on the surface to be coated
of the float glass ribbon.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
I. Claims 1-6 and 8-17 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Stricker3 in view of Florczak4 and
Miller 5
'
II. Claims 7, 19, 23, and 24 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over Stricker, Florczak, and Miller
and further in view of Varanasi 6 and DeDontney; 7
III. Claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over Stricker,
Florczak, and Miller and further in view ofNeuman; 8
IV. Claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over Stricker,
Florczak, Miller, Varanasi, and DeDontney or
alternatively over Stricker, Florczak, Miller, Varanasi,
3 Stricker et al., US 2008/0057225 Al, published Mar. 6, 2008 ("Stricker").
4 Florczak, US 6,268,019 B 1, issued July 31, 2001 ("Florczak").
5 Miller, US 6,022,414 A, published Feb. 8, 2000 ("Miller").
6 Varanasi et al., US 8,158,262 B2, issued Apr. 17, 2012 ("Varanasi").
7 DeDontney et al., US 6,890,386 B2, issued May 10, 2005 ("DeDontney").
8 Neuman et al., US 5,776,236, issued July 7, 1998 ("Neuman").
3
Appeal2018-001727
Application 13/426,689
and DeDontney and further in view of Hamilton; 9
V. Claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over Stricker,
Florczak, and Miller and further in view ofBelousov; 10
and
VI. Claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over Stricker,
Florczak, Miller, Varanasi, and DeDontney and further in
view of Levy. 11
B. DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Claims 1-6 and 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Stricker in view of Florczak and Miller.
\Ve review the appealed rejection for enor based upon the issues
identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and
evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 10721 1075 (BPAI
2010) (precedential), cited ivith approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365
(Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[l]t has long been the Board's practice to require an
applicant to identify the alleged error in the exarniner's rejections .... '').
/\Her considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of
Appellants' arguments, we are not persuaded that A.ppe11ants identify
reversible error. Thus, ,ve affirm the Examiner's rejection essentially fi.n- the
reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and Answer, \Ve add the
following primarily for emphasis.
9 Hamilton et al., US 7,736,698 B2, issued June 15, 2010 ("Hamilton").
10 Belousov et al., US 8,303,713 B2, issued Nov. 6, 2012 ("Belousov").
11 Levy et al., US 2009/0081885 Al, published Mar. 26, 2009 ("Levy").
4
Appeal2018-001727
Application 13/426,689
Appellants contend the applied references do not disclose or suggest
keeping two or more streams separate until they are discharged from a
coating apparatus above a surface of a glass substrate, as recited in claim 1,
because Stricker and Florczak disclose a mixing chamber within a coating
apparatus and Miller discloses an injector but not a coating apparatus.
Appea1 Br. 15----19.
'These arguments are unpersuasive. As explained by the Examiner in
the Examiner's Ans,.ver, Stricker and Florczak do not disclose or suggest
maintaining two or more gaseous ( e.g., precursor streams) separate until
discharge from a coating apparatus, as recited in claim L Ans. 4-5.
I-iowever, the Exarni ner finds 1\-Iiller discloses an injector that keeps two or
rnore streams separate until discharge fmrn an apparatus. Id. at 5-6.
1\t1i1ler's anangement keeps gases separate until discharge, as depicted in
Figure 5 of l\,lilkr, which is reproduced below.
19 19
14
j'" 21--
Figure 5 is a cross-sectional view of an injector embodiment
5
Appeal2018-001727
Application 13/426,689
l\1iller discloses its injectors 10 12 include a block positioned above a
substrate 16 with elongated passages 17. J\.,1iller 4: 12----23, 5:39---42. The
elongated passages 17 receive gas from chemical lines (not shown in Figure
5)~ vvhich then t1ow from the elongated passages 17 through distribution
channels 18 to exit the injector 10 along a gas delivery surface 14. Id. 4:33-
40, 5:42---46. J\ifiller teaches a plurality of elongated passages 17 and
distribution channels 18 are used to keep reactive gases separate and prevent
premature reaction. id. 4:45----66. l\1iller discloses "[g]ases enter the
passages 17 and are conveyed through the distribution channels 18 to the gas
delivery surface 14, where such gases mix along the length and provide a
filrn or layer upon the substrate 16.~' Id. 4:56-59. Thus, :rvrmer discloses
gases are kept separate until they are discharged from the injector's surface
14 immediately above a substrate 16, which suggests gases are kept separate
until discharge :from a coating apparatus because there is no other stn1cture
bet\.veen l\filler's surfi1ce 14 and substrate 16 and little or no room for such a
stmcture. Therefbre, 1'v1i11er's disclosure supports the Examiner's findings.
Appellants do not respond to the Examiner's explanation in the Answer.
As noted by the Examiner, :rvrmer discloses advantages for its injector
(i.e., simple construction, easy maintenance, and prevention of premature
chemical reaction of gases with uniform film deposition) and thus provides a
rationale for modifying Stricker and Florczak in view of J\.,1iller's disclosure.
Final Act. 6---7; Ans. 6. J\.,1oreover, I'viiller discloses it is desirable to maintain
controlled flow and concentrations of gases in a chemical vapor deposition
process, such as to ensure a uniform cornposition for a deposited film.
12 Throughout this Decision, for clarity, we present labels to elements in
figures in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
6
Appeal2018-001727
Application 13/426,689
1\t1iller 5: 12----31. 'Therefore, to the extent Appellants argue l\'1iller is
inapplicable to the process of Stricker and Florczak, such an argument is
unpersuasive in view of l'vriller's teachings, which are applicable to chemical
vapor deposition processes in generaL
At page 19 of the Appeal Brief, Appellants assert the following:
The Miller reference discloses in paragraph [0028]:
The APCVD apparatus used in Examples 9-
11 and 13 consists of a single slot coater which
contains a mixing chamber where two separate
precursor streams can be combined controllably
prior to contacting the substrate surface.
This concept is continued throughout, wherein the
standard coater used includes a mixing chamber within the coater
wherein the elements are mixed. This teaches away from the
concept of keeping the components separate before mixing at the
surface of the substrate.
This appears to be a typographical error because the paragraph quoted
by Appellants is paragraph 28 of Stricker, and Miller does not include
numbered paragraphs. To the extent Appellants argue Stricker teaches away
from Miller's arrangement, we disagree. Florczak, which Stricker
incorporates by reference (Ans. 4; Stricker ,r 15), does not limit its process to
a concentric tube configuration, as depicted in Florczak' s Figure 1, but
discloses its process may use other designs, such as a parallel slot
arrangement. Florczak 5: 63---6 7, 6: 1-5.
In view of the above, a preponderance of the evidence in the record
supports the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Appellants do not argue
claims 2-6 and 8-17 separately from claim 1. Appeal Br. 15-19.
For these reasons and those set forth in the Examiner's Answer, we
sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1---6 and 8-17.
7
Appeal2018-001727
Application 13/426,689
Rejections II-VI
The Examiner uses positions for the rejections of independent claims
19 and 21 similar to that for the rejection of claim 1, with additional
references cited for additional recitations. Final Act. 8-12, 14--21; Ans. 10.
For the rejections of claims 19 and 21, Appellants essentially argue
the additional applied references do not remedy the deficiencies of Stricker,
Florczak, and Miller. Appeal Br. 20-23. For the reasons set forth above
with regard to the rejection of claim 1, Appellants' arguments do not identify
a reversible error in the rejections of claims 19 and 21. Appellants do not
present separate arguments for claims 7, 18, 20, and 22-24. Id. Thus, there
are no deficiencies in the Examiner's findings and conclusion regarding the
combination of Stricker, Florczak, and Miller that require curing by the
additional references cited in the rejections of claims 7 and 18-24.
For these reasons and those set forth in the Examiner's Answer, we
sustain the Examiner's § 103(a) rejections of claims 7 and 18-24.
C. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner 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).
AFFIRMED
8