Pierre Banaszak et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 28, 2022

2021001267 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2022)

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. 12/681,969 09/20/2010 Pierre Banaszak 507840 9194 53609 7590 03/28/2022 REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C. 2215 PERRYGREEN WAY ROCKFORD, IL 61107 EXAMINER CHEN, KEATH T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1716 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/28/2022 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): RockMail@reinhartlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte PIERRE BANASZAK, DIDIER MARNEFFE, ERIC SILBERBERG, and LUC VANHEE ____________ Appeal 2021-001267 Application 12/681,969 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-6 and 10-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The invention relates to an industrial vapor generator for continuous vacuum coating of a substrate. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim and reads as follows: 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Arcelormittal France as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-001267 Application 12/681,969 2 1. A vapour generator for depositing a metal coating on a metal strip (7), comprising a vacuum chamber (6) in a form of a housing, the vacuum chamber (6) equipped with a means for ensuring a low pressure state inside it relative to the external environment, by being sealed relative to the external environment, said housing surrounding a vapour deposition head in a form of an ejector (3) fed by an ejector pipe (3C), which is shaped so as to create a jet of metal vapour at the speed of sound in the direction of and perpendicular to the surface of the metal strip (7), the ejector (3) being sealingly connected by means of a feeder pipe (4) and the ejector pipe (3C) to at least one crucible (1,11,12) comprising a coating metal in a molten state and positioned outside the vacuum chamber (6), wherein the ejector (3) is rotatable around an ejector pipe (3C) axis perpendicular to the surface of the metal strip, and wherein the ejector (3) is a box having a longitudinal dimension comprising an outlet slit (3B) for the vapour, wherein said outlet slit is located at an end of a protrusion, said protrusion in direct contact with a metal strip facing side of said box and extending perpendicularly from the metal strip facing side of said box, and wherein said protrusion extends along the entire longitudinal dimension of the box, said outlet slit acting as a sonic throat, said slit (3B) being oriented along said longitudinal dimension and extending across the entire width of the metal strip (7), and wherein the ejector (3) comprises a filter medium (3A) being positioned therein immediately before said slit (3B) in the path of the vapour and cooperating with said slit (3B) so as to even out the flow speed of the vapour coming out of the ejector (3) through the sonic throat. Appeal Br. (Claims Appendix 1) (emphasis added to highlight a key recitation in dispute). Appeal 2021-001267 Application 12/681,969 3 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1, 3-5, 16-20, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schade van Westrum,2 Matsuda,3 Hori,4 Browning,5 Takanosu,6 Kleyer,7 and Uchida.8 II. Claims 1, 3-5, 16-20, 23, and 24 stand alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schade van Westrum, Matsuda, Hori, Browning, Takanosu, Kleyer, Uchida, and Kurimoto.9 III. Claims 2 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the prior art relied upon in Rejection I or II, further in view of Kubo.10 IV. Claims 6, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the prior art relied upon in Rejection I or II, further in view of Schwelm.11 V. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the prior art relied upon in Rejection I or II, further in view of Malik.12 2 US 2004/0022942 A1; published February 5, 2004. 3 JP 06136537 A; published May 17, 1994. 4 US 4,147,543; issued Apr. 3, 1979. 5 US 4,416,421; issued Nov. 22, 1983. 6 US 2007/0178225 A1; published Aug. 2, 2007. 7 US 5,350,598; issued Sept. 27, 1994. 8 US 2003/0198741 A1; published Oct. 23, 2003. 9 US 5,876,500; issued Mar. 2, 1999. 10 US 4,331,477; issued May 25, 1982. 11 US 5,211,196; issued May 18, 1993. 12 US 2005/0229856 Al; published Oct. 20, 2005. Appeal 2021-001267 Application 12/681,969 4 VI. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the prior art relied upon in Rejection I or II, further in view of Jiro.13 VII. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the prior art relied upon in Rejection I or II, further in view of Pitney.14 VIII. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the prior art relied upon in Rejection I or II, further in view of Brande.15 IX. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the prior art relied upon in Rejection I or II, further in view of Witzman.16 X. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the prior art relied upon in Rejection I or II, further in view of Lee.17 XI. Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the prior art relied upon in Rejection I or II, further in view of Nadeau.18 XII. Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the prior art relied upon in Rejection I or II, further in view of Takamatsu.19 13 US 3,409,726; issued Nov. 5, 1968. 14 US 2,564,231; issued Aug. 14, 1951. 15 US 2004/0026234 A1; published Feb. 12, 2004. 16 US 2001/0011524 Al; published Aug. 9, 2001. 17 US 2003/0196680 Al; published Oct. 23, 2003. 18 US 2004/0173449 Al; published Sept. 9, 2004. 19 US 2003/0209201 Al; published Nov. 13, 2003. Appeal 2021-001267 Application 12/681,969 5 OPINION Claim 1 recites, inter alia, an ejector which is “rotatable around an ejector pipe [] axis.” In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Schade van Westrum discloses a deposition device which includes an ejector pipe and nozzle (Final Act. 4), but fails to teach the nozzle being rotatable around the ejector pipe axis (id. at 5). To meet that recitation, the Examiner finds Matsuda teaches orienting a crucible diagonal to a substrate to be coated, which the Examiner concludes would have provided a reason to make Schade van Westrum’s nozzle rotatable. Id. at 6. Appellant argues Matsuda does not disclose a rotatable ejector, and concerns a “completely different technology” relative to that of Schade van Westrum. Appeal Br. 12-13. Appellant argues the Examiner’s proposed combination of Schade van Westrum and Matsuda lacks rational underpinnings. Id. at 13. In Schade van Westrum, zinc and magnesium vapor flows are delivered to a substrate within a vacuum chamber. See Schade van Westrum ¶ 11, Figs. 7a, 7b. Notably, the different vapor flows necessarily are mixed prior to being delivered to the substrate for coating. Id. ¶ 5 (“Before the vapours reach the substrate’s surface, they must have a predefined composition at a predefined flow rate and must be thoroughly mixed.”). Matsuda addresses a different problem, which is said to arise in connection with coating a substrate with distinct metals emitted by evaporation from separate crucibles. Matsuda ¶ 2. According to Matsuda, metal vapors emitted from crucibles aligned perpendicular or parallel relative to a substrate to be coated results in uneven coating, different regions of the substrate being coated with one metal or the other, and only Appeal 2021-001267 Application 12/681,969 6 part of the substrate being coated with both metals. Id. ¶ 4. Matsuda depicts the above-mentioned problem in Figure 4, showing Al and Ti crucibles (2), and the resulting coating comprising layer (8) of aluminum only, layer (10) of titanium only, and layer (9) of the desired aluminum-titanium alloy. To resolve the foregoing problem and achieve uniform coating of alloy across the substrate surface, Matsuda teaches orienting the crucibles at an angle relative to the moving direction of the substrate to be coated. Id. ¶ 7, Fig. 1. In light of the foregoing disclosures, we are persuaded the Examiner has not articulated a reason, supported by evidence, why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Schade van Westrum’s nozzle to be rotatable. Schade van Westrum expressly requires vapor flows to be thoroughly mixed prior to being delivered to a substrate. As such, any resulting substrate coating necessarily would have involved the intimately mixed metals. In contrast, Matsuda separately delivers evaporated metals directly from separate crucibles, which Matsuda teaches can lead to substrate regions being coated with only one or the other metal, rather than the desired alloy. As such, Matsuda addresses a problem of non-uniform alloy coating that is not shown to be present in Schade van Westrum. Moreover, Matsuda resolves the non-uniformity problem by adjusting orientation of crucibles from which the individual metals are evaporated, not by rotating an ejection nozzle. As Appellant correctly states, Matsuda does not disclose a rotatable nozzle. For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded the Examiner does not adequately identify a reason why Matsuda would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Schade van Westrum’s nozzle to be rotatable. Appeal 2021-001267 Application 12/681,969 7 The Examiner does not rely on any other prior art of record in a manner that cures the foregoing deficiency. Accordingly, each of the Examiner’s rejections is not sustained. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6 and 10-24 is reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3-5, 16- 20, 23, 24 103(a) Schade van Westrum, Matsuda, Hori, Browning, Takanosu, Kleyer, Uchida 1, 3-5, 16- 20, 23, 24 1, 3-5, 16- 20, 23, 24 103(a) Schade van Westrum, Matsuda, Hori, Browning, Takanosu, Kleyer, Uchida, Kurimoto 1, 3-5, 16- 20, 23, 24 2, 20 103(a) Schade van Westrum, Matsuda, Hori, Browning, Takanosu, Kleyer, Uchida, Kurimoto, Kubo 2, 20 6, 21, 22 103(a) Schade van Westrum, Matsuda, Hori, Browning, Takanosu, Kleyer, 6, 21, 22 Appeal 2021-001267 Application 12/681,969 8 Uchida, Kurimoto, Schwelm 10 103(a) Schade van Westrum, Matsuda, Hori, Browning, Takanosu, Kleyer, Uchida, Kurimoto, Malik 10 11 103(a) Schade van Westrum, Matsuda, Hori, Browning, Takanosu, Kleyer, Uchida, Kurimoto, Jiro 11 12 103(a) Schade van Westrum, Matsuda, Hori, Browning, Takanosu, Kleyer, Uchida, Kurimoto, Pitney 12 13 103(a) Schade van Westrum, Matsuda, Hori, Browning, Takanosu, Kleyer, Uchida, Kurimoto, Brande 13 14 103(a) Schade van Westrum, Matsuda, Hori, Browning, Takanosu, Kleyer, Uchida, Kurimoto, Witzman 14 15 103(a) Schade van Westrum, 15 Appeal 2021-001267 Application 12/681,969 9 Matsuda, Hori, Browning, Takanosu, Kleyer, Uchida, Kurimoto, Lee 21, 22 103(a) Schade van Westrum, Matsuda, Hori, Browning, Takanosu, Kleyer, Uchida, Kurimoto, Nadeau 21, 22 21, 22 103(a) Schade van Westrum, Matsuda, Hori, Browning, Takanosu, Kleyer, Uchida, Kurimoto, Takamatsu 21, 22 Overall outcome 1-6, 10-24 REVERSED