Ex Parte Hazeltine

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 22, 2018

12913227 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/913,227 10/27/2010 37462 7590 03/26/2018 LANDO & ANASTASI, LLP ONE MAIN STREET, SUITE 1100 CAMBRIDGE, MA 02142 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Bruce Hazeltine 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. G2048-700619 3499 EXAMINER NGUYEN, NGOC YEN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1734 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/26/2018 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@LALaw.com CKent@LALaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRUCE HAZEL TINE Appeal2017-006990 Application 12/913,227 Technology Center 1700 Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4---6, and 16-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 We cite to the Specification ("Spec.") filed October 27, 2010; Final Office Action ("Final Act.") dated March 11, 2016; Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Br.") dated August 10, 2016; and Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") dated January 12, 2017. 2 Appellant identifies GT AT Corporation as the real party in interest. Br. 1. Appeal2017-006990 Application 12/913,227 BACKGROUND The invention relates to methods for producing trichlorosilane. Spec. 1 :6-8. Claim I-the sole independent claim-illustrates the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method of preparing trichlorosilane, comprising: heating in a heating section of a reboiler, at least a portion of a gaseous stream comprising hydrogen with saturated steam having a pressure in a range of from about 5 bar to about 15 bar to provide a heated gaseous stream having sufficient heat of vaporization to saturate the heated gaseous stream comprising hydrogen with a liquid stream comprising silicon tetrachloride; introducing the liquid stream comprising silicon tetrachloride to the reboiler to provide a desired liquid level in the reboiler; vaporizing the liquid stream comprising silicon tetrachloride with the heated gaseous stream in a vaporization zone of the re boiler to produce a gaseous reactant stream comprising hydrogen saturated with silicon tetrachloride, the gaseous reactant stream having a temperature of between about 125Â°C to about 350Â°C at an outlet of the vaporization zone; introducing the gaseous reactant stream into a reactor; and recovering a product stream comprising trichlorosilane, silicon tetrachloride, and hydrogen from the reactor. Br. 9 (Claims Appendix). 2 Appeal2017-006990 Application 12/913,227 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1, 4---6, and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Lord3 in view of Ameth4 and Weigert. 5 II. Claims 1 and 4---6 stand alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Weigert in view of Ameth and Lord. OPINION Rejection I Appellant argues the rejected claims as a group. See Br. 2-7. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we select claim 1 as representative and decide the appeal of Rejection I based on the representative claim alone. Relevant to Appellant's arguments on appeal, the Examiner finds that Lord discloses a method for producing trichlorosilane that includes using steam to evaporate silicon tetrachloride into a hydrogen gas, and feeding the evaporated mixture to a reactor to form trichlorosilane. Final Act. 3. The Examiner also finds that Weigert teaches that evaporation of silicon tetrachloride in hydrogen to saturation is desirable in a process for producing trichlorosilane. Id. at 4. The Examiner finds that Ameth teaches that thermosiphon reboilers exhibit high heat transfer rates and low fouling tendencies, and were a preferred evaporation unit in industrial chemical processes. Id. at 5. In light of these disclosures, the Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to use a steam-heated 3 US 2010/0111804 Al, published May 6, 2010 ("Lord"). 4 Stephan Ameth & Johann Stichlmair, Characteristics of thermosiphon reboilers, 40 INT. J. THERM. SCI. 385-91 (2001) ("Ameth"). 5 US 4,165,363, issued August 21, 1979 ("Weigert"). 3 Appeal2017-006990 Application 12/913,227 reboiler in Lord's process to accomplish the disclosed operation of evaporating silicon tetrachloride into hydrogen gas. Id. at 6. Appellant argues that neither Lord nor Weigert discloses the use of a reboiler for the evaporation unit. Br. 4. Appellant also argues that replacing Lord's evaporator with a reboiler would "render Lord inoperable for its intended purpose," id., and would make downstream heating stages in Lord redundant, id. at 6. Appellant states that "[i]t is unclear why one of ordinary skill would modify Lord, in the manner suggested by the Examiner." Id. We find these arguments unpersuasive of reversible error. The fact that neither Lord nor Weigert specifies use of a re boiler neither addresses nor negates Ameth's teaching that reboilers were recognized as preferred evaporators in industrial chemical processes. As aptly expressed by the Examiner, Lord does not identify particular structure for performing the disclosed evaporation, and Ameth provides a reason to select a reboiler for that purpose. Final Act. 5---6. Appellant's contentions that use of a reboiler for Lord's evaporation stage would render Lord inoperable, or would nullify Lord's additional downstream heating stages, are not supported by citation of evidence or credible technical reasoning. On this appeal record, we are not persuaded that providing a reboiler to perform Lord's disclosed evaporation of silicon tetrachloride into hydrogen would have had any consequence in Lord's operation other than the desired evaporative heating of those components. Appellant's further arguments that Lord uses a higher reactor temperature, Br. 5, and that Weigert uses a lower evaporation temperature, id. at 6, also are not persuasive of reversible error. Appellant's claim 1 lacks any recitation of reactor temperature. Moreover, Appellant does not dispute 4 Appeal2017-006990 Application 12/913,227 the Examiner's finding that Lord teaches evaporation at a temperature within the recited range. Compare Final Act. 5 (finding that Lord's evaporated stream has a temperature of 151.30Â° C) with, Br. 2-7. For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not persuade us of reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 based on the combined disclosures of Lord, Ameth, and Weigert. Accordingly, Rejection I is sustained. Re} ection II Appellant does not present any argument in connection with Rejection II other than what is presented in connection with Rejection I. See Br. 7-8. Accordingly, Rejection II is sustained for the reasons set forth above in connection with Rejection I. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4---6, and 16-18 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 5