Ex Parte Wang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2018

13031019 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/031,019 02/18/2011
43859 7590 12/25/2018
SLATER MATSIL, LLP/TSMC
17950 PRESTON ROAD, SUITE 1000
DALLAS, TX 75252
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shih-Ming Wang
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.
TSMl0-1122 3929
EXAMINER
ZALASKY, KATHERINE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1777
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/25/2018 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):
docketing@slatermatsil.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHIH-MING WANG and WEN-CHENG CHOU 1
Appeal2018-003261
Application 13/031,019
Technology Center 1700
BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
PERCURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-16 and 21-24. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Taiwan Semiconductor
Manufacturing Company, Ltd.
Appeal 2018-003261
Application 13/031,019
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant's subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below:
1. A method for concentrating a slurry, the method comprising:
providing a slurry, the slurry introduced to a slurry filter through a
first inlet of the slurry filter;
filtering the slurry through the slurry filter to generate a slurry
concentrate and a discharge waste permeate, the discharge waste
permeate exiting the slurry filter through a first outlet of the slurry
filter, the slurry concentrate exiting the slurry filter through a second
outlet of the slurry filter, the second outlet of the slurry filter different
than the first outlet of the slurry filter and different than the first inlet
of the slurry filter, the first outlet of the slurry filter different than the
first inlet of the slurry filter, the discharge waste permeate discharged
from the first outlet of the slurry filter to a second inlet of a waste
tank, the waste tank discharged from a third outlet of the waste tank to
a waste water treatment facility; and
performing a backwash operation on the slurry filter using the
discharge waste permeate flowing from a fourth outlet of the waste
tank into the first outlet of the slurry filter and out the first inlet of the
slurry filter, the fourth outlet of the waste tank different than the
second inlet of
the waste tank and different than the third outlet of the waste tank, the
third outlet of the waste tank different than the second inlet of the
waste tank, the backwash operation occurring after a first pressure
differential between the first inlet of the slurry filter and the first outlet
of the slurry filter is greater than o.8 bar.
2
Appeal 2018-003261
Application 13/031,019
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Russ us 6,165,048 Dec. 26,
2000
Hammer US 6,436,281 B2 Aug. 30,
2002
Osuda US 2004/0069878 Al Apr. 15,
2004
Smith US 2007/0138092 Al June 21,
2007
Bonnelye US 2007/0187326 Al Aug. 16,
2007
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § l 12(b) or 35 U.S.C. §
112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite. 2
2. Claims 1-15 and 21-23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Osuda in view of Russ, Hammer, Smith,
and Bonnelve.
DECISION
2 Appellant does not contest this rejection, so it is summarily affirmed. See
Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that
summary affirmance without consideration of the substantive merits is
appropriate where an appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection).
3
Appeal 2018-003261
Application 13/031,019
We sustain the above rejections based on the findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments expressed by the Examiner in
the Answer, particularly at pages 21-26.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
Rejection 1 is summarily affirmed.
Rejection 2 is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ l.136(a)(l )(iv).
ORDER
AFFIRMED
4