Ex Parte Zahn

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2019

14368242 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/368,242 06/23/2014
23908 7590 03/04/2019
RENNER OTTO BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
1621 EUCLID AVENUE
NINETEENTH FLOOR
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Zahn
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.
FRYHP0205WOUSA 9291
EXAMINER
TANKERSLEY, BLAKE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/04/2019 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):
ipdocket@rennerotto.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL ZAHN 1
(Applicant: DTG INTERNATIONAL GmbH)
Appeal2018-002684
Application 14/368,242
Technology Center 2800
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as ASM Assembly Systems
Switzerland GmbH ..
Appeal2018-002684
Application 14/368,242
Appellant requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § I34(a) of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10-19, 22, 25, 32, 33, and
35-39. 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 (with text in bold for emphasis):
1. A stencil for printing a pattern of deposits on a substrate,
wherein the stencil comprises an electroformed metal sheet which has a first
layer which includes an apertured region through which a printing medium
is applied in a printing operation, wherein the apertured region has the form
of a grid which comprises orthogonally-arranged web elements, which
together define apertures therebetween, and a second layer which overlies a
substrate to be printed and includes a plurality of separated apertures,
wherein the apertures of the second layer extend across and beyond
the apertured region in the first layer, with the apertures in the second layer
being arranged in the form of a regular array which repeats laterally across
and outwardly beyond the apertured region of the first layer, and wherein the
apertures of the second layer disposed adjacent and outwardly of the
apertured region in the first layer are blind apertures and the apertures of
the second layer disposed inwardly of and enclosed by the blind apertures
are through apertures, each having a pattern corresponding to that to be
printed on the substrate.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Takagi et al.
(hereinafter Takagi)
Yano et al.
(hereinafter Y ano)
us 5,361,695
US 2008/0074032 Al
2
Nov. 08, 1994
Mar. 27, 2008
Appeal2018-002684
Application 14/368,242
Nagai US 2008/0093614 Al Apr. 24, 2008
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10-19, 22, 25, 32, and 33 are rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takagi.
2. Claims 35-38 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Takagi as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 8,
10-19, 22, 25, 32, and 34 above, and further in view ofNagai.
3. Claim 39 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Takagi as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10-19,
22, 25, 32, and 34 above, and further in view of Yano.
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1
There is dispute regarding the interpretation of Takagi concerning
whether the small quadrilaterals in FIG. 20B of Takagi are projections or
recesses. Appellants submit they are projections. The Examiner believes
them to be recesses (apertures). The Examiner's response to Appellant's
position is reproduced below:
Appellants argue that the rejections of claims 1, 18, 25, and 36
misinterpret the teachings of U.S. Patent No. 5,361,695 to Takagi et
al. (hereinafter Takagi), and therefore the obviousness rejections of
claims 1,18, 25, and 36 should be withdrawn. Specifically, Appellants
argue that the small quadrilaterals in FIG. 20B of Takagi are
projections, not recesses as described in the rejections (Appeal Brief,
page 15). In response, while it is agreed that that there are drawing
inaccuracies in Takagi, reading Takagi as a whole makes clear that the
3
Appeal2018-002684
Application 14/368,242
small quadrilaterals in FIG. 20B are recesses, not projections. It is
noted that all of Appellants' arguments regarding claims 1, 18, 25, and
36 rise or fall on whether the small quadrilaterals in FIG. 20B are
projections or recesses.
Since FIG. 20B is only a 2D drawing, whether the small quadrilaterals
are recesses or projections cannot be determined by looking at FIG.
20B alone. Accordingly, page 16 of the Final Rejection mailed on
November 7, 2016 compared FIGS. 20B and 21D (a cross-sectional
view of FIG. 20B) to answer this question, ...
By mapping the elements of the cross-sectional view shown in FIG.
2 lD to the elements shown in the top view shown in FIG. 20B, the
small quadrilaterals can be quickly determined to be recesses, not
projections.
Specifically, starting at the center of the aperture (214) and moving
outwards, there is the "Lip", then the partition (216), then the "Space"
between the partition (216) and the partition (218), then the "Partition"
(218), and then the small quadrilateral which is a "Blind Aperture"
(i.e. a recess). It is noted that Appellants have never rebutted this
comparison between FIGS. 20B and 2 lD.
Ans. 2--4 ( emphasis omitted).
In reply, Appellant states that the Examiner's contention (that the
small quadrilaterals of Takagi' s sixth embodiment are apertures) is mistaken
and does not represent how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
the embodiment. Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill would
understand from a full viewing of Figures 202, 20B, and 21A-21D of the
2 It is noted that Appellant refers to Figure 20A, but the intent was Figure
20 since Figure 20 is the 3D illustration that Appellant mentions in
discussing this figure.
4
Appeal2018-002684
Application 14/368,242
embodiment, that the quadrilaterals actually are the partitions 218 discussed
in the respective sections of Takagi' s specification. Reply Br. 2-3.
Takagi's Figures 20, 20B and 21D are reproduced below.
e""'G . , f"i r 1 . , 4,.l1
5
1Q{l
.,,,<~;,J'<
Appeal2018-002684
Application 14/368,242
FIG~ 20B
21~ 214 21a: /. 2.2:0
C CJ t:l C O CJ O O C c:J Oi
cE5gf;gg ··· t:l~f
1QCClCOC :· ···· .. 8c
~cc·occ ocCCcc ilc cc cic c 1 · ... o cf
OCCCC:J'C• ....... cr:u
~.c . . ,.....,.o··.···.·.·.··· =. : =.· .=.···········. g.·: .. -~ ~ ~· .. ~. =.:·. g .. :.:k .~~~·~~ .. ~~~ ·~~· 1ccoccc .. ···· _ ·:::::::_.: .. ··cc-· ...
:g g ~ ~ ~ g . :.. · ... ,,,,, ~ ~~~""'- 218
1s s c :cs a c::1·0 c ~ a g.· .. .. r 1 / /
lE'\"~~-~.·~=Ll.;.·' .-Ji?:··. : ;...~'*'-.. -... :.: : :~,, ...g . ·. l .. /~· .# ~ .............
--.•·. ·: // ~/'·. 214 Ext;; !nae.cur.ate Une
21S 216 216
FIG. 210
218
Takagi, Sixth Embodiment (Fig. 20 Annotated for Emphasis)
Appeal2018-002684
Application 14/368,242
Appellant argues that, while the Examiner contends that Figure 2 lD
mapped to Figure 20B demonstrates the criss-cross grid shown in Figure
20B is a raised partition defining apertures 218, this argument overlooks the
main figure of the embodiment - Figure 20 - which is shown in
perspective view, showing features in 3D. Appellant disagrees that an
examination of the embodiment falls on a mapping of the 2D drawings of
Figures 2 lD and 20B. Appellant argues that the Examiner appears to
recognize the difficulty in determining which features represent partitions
and which features represent apertures from 2D drawings. However, rather
than tum to the more descriptive 3D view of the embodiment, Appellant
states that the Examiner turns to mapping only one portion of the 2D
renderings of Figures 2 lD and 20B, overlooking the clear representation of
elements 218 identified in these 2D Figures. Reply Br. 6.
Appellant submits that instead, one skilled in the art looking at
Takagi, first would tum to the 3D view of Figure 20, and also would
interpret the sixth embodiment based on a totality of the figures, rather than
looking only to Figures 20B and 21D (which are even included on separated
pages) in isolation. We agree. As pointed out by Appellant (Reply Br. 6),
MPEP 2125 states in part: "the description of the article pictured can be
relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably
teach one of ordinary skill in the art."
Appellant states that, as shown in Figures 20, 20B and 2 lD, lead lines
218 are drawn directly to numerous of the quadrilaterals in the figures ( e.g.,
Figure 20B), and Takagi' s disclosure identifies these elements 218 as
partitions 218. Appellant states that this understanding is also consistent
with the description, which identifies a number of partitions 218, and not a
7
Appeal2018-002684
Application 14/368,242
single partition provided in criss-cross as alleged by the Examiner. See, e.g.,
Takagi, col. 14, lines 50-68, which states in part: "[ o ]n the rear surface of
metal plate 220, a number of thin partitions 218 are formed in a lattice."
Reply Br. 6-7.
In view of the aforementioned teachings of Takagi, we are persuaded
that one of ordinary skill would not understand a single raised criss-cross
feature as being a number of thin partitions. Notably, as Appellant points
out on page 7 of the Reply Brief, the Examiner did not address this specific
position in the Answer, in response to it being raised in the Appeal Brief.
Appellants further point out that comer Feature A identified in Figure
20, supra, can only be achieved where the elements represented by element
number 218 of Figs. 20, 20B, and 21D of Takagi are solid
projections/partitions and not apertures as alleged by the Examiner. Reply
Br. 7. We agree. Appellant explains that comer Feature A is a cross-section
through one of the raised quadrilateral partitions 218, and due to the clear
spacing of the comer Feature A from the adjacent partitions 218 to either
side of comer Feature A, one of ordinary skill in the art would not
understand the feature as being a portion of a criss-cross partition.
In sum, we agree with Appellant that one of ordinary skill would look
to the combination of representations of the features of the metal mask 109 -
- the plural partitions 218, the lead lines for the numbering of 218, and the
comer Feature A- and not merely to Figs. 20B and 2 lD in isolation. In
doing so, one would recognize that the spaced apart quadrilaterals aligned in
a lattice in the set of figures are indeed the "number of thin partitions 218,"
of Takagi's description, and are not instead apertures as
mistakenly contended by the Examiner.
8
Appeal2018-002684
Application 14/368,242
In view of the above, we reverse Rejection 1. We also reverse
Rejections 2 and 3 for the same reasons.
DECISION
Each rejection is reversed.
ORDER
REVERSED
9