Gerardine G. BotteDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 23, 201914391253 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/391,253 10/08/2014 Gerardine G. Botte OU-12018US 1408 26875 7590 08/23/2019 WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP 2700 CAREW TOWER 441 VINE STREET CINCINNATI, OH 45202 EXAMINER MILLER, MICHAEL G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1712 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/23/2019 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): usptodock@whe-law.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GERARDINE G. BOTTE Appeal 2018-008616 Application 14/391,253 Technology Center 1700 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant,1 Ohio University, appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–8, 10–14, and 17–21 under 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ohio University. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2018-008616 Application 14/391,253 2 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Dervishi,2 Kawabata,3 and Botte4 and adding Shah5 to reject claims 15 and 16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. The claims are directed to a method of forming graphene in the form of a graphene sheet. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of forming graphene comprising heating electrolyzed coal to a temperature effective to form graphite in the presence of a flowing stream of reductant gas, said temperature being greater than 400° centigrade and less than 1100° centigrade, wherein the stream of reductant gas deposits graphene onto a surface forming a graphene sheet. Appeal Br. 19 (claims appendix). OPINION Appellant has identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s finding of a suggestion within the prior art for using electrolyzed coal and a reductant gas to form graphene sheets. Appeal Br. 8–18. Dervishi discloses a method of forming carbon nanotubes (CNTs) and few-layer graphene sheets by radio-frequency chemical vapor deposition. Dervishi Abs. At lower temperatures, CNTs are formed, but at 1000°C, 2 Dervishi et al., Versatile Catalytic System for the Large-Scale and Controlled Synthesis of Single-Wall, Double-Wall, Multi-Wall, and Graphene Carbon Nanostructures, Chem. Mater. 2009, 21, 5491–5498 (online Oct. 20, 2009). 3 Kawabata, US 2007/0003471 A1, published Jan. 4, 2007. 4 Botte, WO 2010/111129 A1, published Sept. 30, 2010. 5 Shah et al., US 2012/0058352 A1, published Mar. 8, 2012. Appeal 2018-008616 Application 14/391,253 3 graphene sheets are formed. Id. However, as acknowledged by the Examiner, Dervishi’s method uses acetylene, not electrolyzed coal as a carbon source, and does not provide a stream of reductant gas. Dervishi p. 5492 Experimental Results ¶ 2. The Examiner turns to Kawabata and Botte to support the conclusion of obviousness, but these references fall short of suggesting the method of the claims. First, the Examiner finds that “Dervishi is open to assorted hydrocarbon sources (p 5491, Introduction, first paragraph) and notes that controlling the hydrocarbon type can influence the growth and morphology of the nanotubes.” Final 7. However, Dervishi provides no guidance on selecting hydrocarbon sources. Dervishi merely states that “[s]ynthesis conditions such as catalyst composition, reaction temperature, hydrocarbon type, and flow rates of the carrier and hydrocarbon gas have enormous influences on nanotube growth” and “[t]his method of production is very versatile and has also been utilized to synthesize graphene in large quantities.” Dervishi p. 5491 Introduction ¶ 1. This broad brush statement merely conveys that nanotube growth is sensitive to many process parameters including the type of hydrocarbon gas used. Second, neither Kawabata nor Botte suggest heating electrolyzed coal to form graphite in the presence of a flowing stream of reductant gas and depositing graphene from the stream of reductant gas onto a surface to form a graphene sheet. Both Kawabata and Botte are directed to forming carbon nanotubes, not graphene sheets. Kawabata teaches growing carbon nanotubes on a substrate by chemical vapor deposition using a functionalized carbon source compound. Kawabata ¶ 29. The hydrocarbon sources contemplated for use are Appeal 2018-008616 Application 14/391,253 4 fullerene, aliphatic hydrocarbons such as methane, acetylene, ethane, propane and butane, and cyclic hydrocarbons such as benzene. Kawabata ¶ 30. These carbon sources do not suggest the use of coal or electrolyzed coal as a carbon source. The Examiner finds that Kawabata “discloses that it is known to use hydrocarbon sources to grow graphenic carbon nanotubes.” Final 7. To support this finding, the Examiner cites paragraph 34 of Kawabata, but this paragraph does not support the finding. Paragraph 34 merely discloses that the growth mechanism is the same for the functionalized carbon compounds as it is for ordinary (non-functionalized) carbon compounds. Kawabata ¶ 34. Moreover, Kawabata merely conveys that the growth mechanism is the same for growing nanotubes. No guidance is provided for growing graphene sheets. Botte teaches using electrolyzed coal (char) as a carbon source for forming nanotubes, not graphene sheet. Botte ¶ 22. According to Botte, the char particles can be formed into carbon nanotubes using any of the methods well-known for forming carbon nanotubes such as spray pyrolysis, thermal chemical vapor deposition, and plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition. Botte ¶ 30. Botte then describes a spray pyrolysis method that uses a carrier gas such as argon or a H2/N2 mixture. Botte ¶ 31. Botte does not disclose using the radio-frequency method of Dervishi, a process that does not use a reductant gas. Although Dervishi teaches a method of forming graphene sheet, the method is different than that claimed, and the teachings in Kawabata and Botte, which are directed to forming nanotubes, do not reasonably suggest using electrolyzed coal in a stream of reductant gas in Dervishi’s method to Appeal 2018-008616 Application 14/391,253 5 form graphene sheet. Thus, we determine the evidence fails to support the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. The Examiner’s reliance on Shah to reject claims 15 and 16 does not cure the deficiencies. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection is reversed. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–8, 10–14, 17–21 § 103(a) 1–8, 10– 14, 17-21 15, 16 § 103(a) 15, 16 Outcome 1–8, 10–21 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation