Ex Parte LEE et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 21, 2019

13786240 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/786,240 03/05/2013 20277 7590 03/25/2019 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP The McDermott Building 500 North Capitol Street, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20001 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR HoikwanLEE 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. 082147-0060 9350 EXAMINER CALVETTI, FREDERICK F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3761 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/25/2019 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): ipdocketmwe@mwe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HOIKWAN LEE, KYUNG MIN YOON, and SEO-YEONG CHO 1 Appeal 2018-004593 Application 13/786,240 Technology Center 3700 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-7, 9-14, and 16-21 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Sortais (US 2011/0260621 Al, pub. Oct. 27, 2011), Nehls (US 2011/0266717 Al, pub. Nov. 3, 2011), and Pavliscak 1 Samsung Coming Precision Materials Co., Ltd. ("Appellant") is the Applicant as provided in 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest in the Appeal Brief filed September 11, 2017 (''Appeal Br."). Appeal Br. 1. The Appeal Brief does not include page numbers. We refer to the pages of the Appeal Brief numbered in consecutive order, beginning with the page titled "APPEAL BRIEF" as page 1. Appeal2018-004593 Application 13/786,240 (US 7,474,273 Bl, issued Jan. 6, 2009). 2 We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1 and 4 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A high frequency heating apparatus comprising a plurality of high frequency generators disposed over a glass substrate to be carried in a first direction and spaced apart from each other in the first direction, each of the plurality of high frequency generators generating high frequency to heat the glass substrate, the high frequency ranging from 0.98 GHz to 6.0 GHz, wherein a distance from the glass substrate to each of the plurality of high frequency generators is (n'/2)*A, where n' is a natural number ranging from 1 to 6, and A is a wavelength of the high frequency. OPINION Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-14, and 16-21 In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Sortais teaches, inter alia, a plurality of high frequency generators (3,6,7,8,para[.] 3)disposed over a glass substrate (para[.] 3 -transistors/glass, para[.] 51) ... , wherein a distance from the glass substrate to each of the plurality of high frequency generators is (n'/2)*(lambda)(para[.] 12-half wavelength), where n' is a natural number ranging from 1 to 6(para[.] 12), and [lambda] is a wavelength of the high frequency(para[s.] 3,12,28,35,40). 2 Claims 2, 8, and 15 are cancelled. See Amendment (Dec. 21, 2016). 2 Appeal2018-004593 Application 13/786,240 Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner acknowledges that "[t]he claims differ at best in the recited distance to a glass substrate in half wavelengths." Id. However, the Examiner finds that Nehls teaches that "spacing/distance is by half wavelengths (para[s.] 75,78, 114,143,158,172,173, 174)." Id. at 6. The Examiner also finds that "Pavliscak teaches similarly ... [that ']each ionized area is disposed, with respect to adjacent ionized plasma areas, a distance equivalent to approximately one half of a wavelength associated with the at least one operating frequency band.[']" Id. (boldface omitted) (quoting Pavliscak, col. 10, 11. 33-37). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify ... Sortais by spacing the distance to a substrate in half wavelengths as taught by Nehls or Pavliscak for uniformity of power and temperature in heating a glass substrate for cost effectiveness, light and plasma sources. This includes 2 wavelengths as set forth in the present [S]pecification in para[s.] 41,43. Id.; see also Ans. 14 ("There is a motivation to improve [ the distance between the generators and the substrate] and Nehls teaches homogeneous heating distribution as a motivation. Nehls teaches the claimed distance as best understood using high frequency generators and its obvious result."). Appellant argues that the cited references do not teach or suggest "a distance from the glass substrate to each of the plurality of high frequency generators is (n'/2)*A, where n' is a natural number ranging from 1 to 6, and A is a wavelength of the high frequency," as recited in claim 1. Supp. Appeal Br. 4. 3 In particular, Appellant asserts that Nehls does not teach half 3 Appellant's Supplemental Appeal Brief filed October 30, 2017 ("Supp. Appeal Br.") does not include page numbers. For convenience, we refer herein to pages of the Supplemental Appeal Brief numbered in consecutive 3 Appeal2018-004593 Application 13/786,240 wavelength spacing between high frequency generators and the substrate. Id. at 7 (citing Nehls ,r,r 75, 78, 88, 114, 143, 158, 172-174). The Examiner responds, in the Answer, that Nehls teaches that "separation of antennas for the space 20(substrate) [is] preferably selected so that an essentially homogeneous field strength distribution is obtained[;] this being a separation from the space 20 which is more than at least one wavelength of the microwave radiation." Ans. 13 (citing Nehls ,r 143). The Examiner also finds that, "[i]n para[.] 102 [of Nehls], separation is defined [as] the distance between the substance/substrate and the plane on which the microwave antenna [is] arranged. Table 2 follows for the examples teaching separation of 3,6 cm." Id. According to the Examiner, "Nehls teaches more than at least one wavelength. That teaching is within the range of the recitation (n/2)[lambda] in claims 1 and 4. Nehls also teaches the distance. See at least para[.] 102 and table 2." Id. at 17. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not adequately supported a finding that Nehls teaches the distance between the substrate and high frequency generators required by claim 1. The claim recites that this distance "is (n'/2)*A, where n' is a natural number ranging from 1 to 6." Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). Natural numbers ranging from 1 to 6 include the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, and thus, for n' values of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, a distance (n'/2)*A includes 0.5A, A, 1.5A, 2A, 2.5A, and 3A. In other words, claim 1 requires a distance between the substrate and high frequency generators of0.5A, A, 1.5A, 2A, 2.5A, or 3A (i.e., one of six discrete values). order, beginning with the title page as page 1. 4 Appeal2018-004593 Application 13/786,240 Nehls teaches that microwave radiator 50 produces microwave radiation to heat space 20, and microwave radiator 50 and space 20 are separated at a distance such "that an essentially homogeneous field strength distribution is obtained in the space 20, this being achievable in particular by the microwave radiator unit having a separation from the space 20 which is more than at least one wavelength of the microwave radiation." Nehls ,r 143 (emphasis added). We fail to see how Nehls' broad teaching of a separation value of "more than at least one wavelength of the microwave radiation" (id. ( emphasis added)) would meet the disputed limitation that specifies only six discrete values for the separation. Nehls also teaches a test scenario with particular values for "[t]he separation describ[ing] the distance between the substance mixture and the plane on which the microwave antennas are arranged." Id. ,r 102. In particular, Nehls teaches separation distances of 3cm, 6cm, and 12cm separating the substance mixture and antennas. Id. at Table 2. In this regard, we agree with Appellant that there is insufficient evidence to support the Examiner's position that separation values in Table 2 of Nehls correspond to the distance values encompassed by the formula recited in claim 1 (i.e., 0.5A, A, 1.5A, 2A, 2.5A, or 31v). See Reply Br. 8 (Asserting that "the Examiner is assuming that 3 cm corresponds to (n'/2)*A, where n' is a natural number ranging from 1 to 6, and A is a wavelength of the high frequency, but there is no support for this assumption in Nehls."). Paragraph 102 and Table 2 of Nehls do not discuss frequency or wavelength, and the Examiner has not adequately explained how the separation values of 3 cm or 6 cm relate to any particular wavelength such that it could be determined whether such separation values represent 0.5A, A, 1.5A, 2A, 2.5A, or 3A, as 5 Appeal2018-004593 Application 13/786,240 called for in claim 1. Thus, the Examiner's finding as to the disclosure of Nehls lacks adequate evidentiary support. The Examiner's reliance on Pavliscak in the rejection of claim 1 does not remedy the aforementioned deficiency in Nehls. Pavliscak teaches that "each ionized plasma area is disposed, with respect to adjacent ionized plasma areas, a distance equivalent to approximately one half of a wavelength associated with the at least one operating frequency band." Pavliscak, col. 10, 11. 33-37. The Examiner takes the position that "Pavliscak teaches design criteria for glass devices relating to approximately one half wavelength associated with at least one operating band." Ans. 18. However, as Appellant points out, "Pavliscak does not refer to a distance between a glass substrate and a high frequency generator, [but, rather,] is referring to [distances between] ionized plasma areas." Supp. Appeal Br. 9 (boldface and underlining omitted); Reply Br. 8. The Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based on an insufficient finding as to the scope and content of Nehls and Pavliscak, namely, that Nehls and Pavliscak each teach that the distance between the plasma source (i.e., high-frequency generator) and the substrate is "(n'/2)*A, where n' is a natural number ranging from 1 to 6, and A is a wavelength of the high frequency" (i.e., 0.5A, A, 1.5A, 2A, 2.5A, or 31v), as called for in claim 1. For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Sortais, Nehls, and Pavliscak renders obvious the subject matter of independent claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 3, 5-7, 9-14, and 16-21 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Sortais, Nehls, and Pavliscak. 6 Appeal2018-004593 Application 13/786,240 Claim 4 Independent claim 4 recites, in relevant part, that "the plurality of high frequency generators are arranged at distances expressed by (n' '/2)*A, where n'' is a natural number ranging from 1 to 12, and A, is a wavelength of the high frequency." Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). 4 To the extent that the term "distances" as recited in claim 4 means the distances between the generators and a substrate, the Examiner's rejection of claim 4 relies on the same deficient findings and reasoning discussed above in connection with claim 1. See Final Act. 7 ("See the rejection of claim 1."); Ans. 19 (Stating that, "the PTO repeats and incorporates its above Response to Arguments here for independent claim 1. "). To the extent that the term "distances" as recited in claim 4 means the distances between the generators, we agree with Appellant that Sortais discloses distances "between the coupler and the central rod of 5 to 15 times smaller than the quarter of the wavelength, not half of the wavelength." Reply Br. 5 ( emphasis omitted). We also agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not adequately explained how Nehls or Pavliscak teaches the claimed distances between generators. Id. at 5-8. We note that Pavliscak teaches that "each ionized plasma area is disposed, with respect to adjacent ionized plasma areas, a distance equivalent to approximately one half of a wavelength associated with the at 4 The Examiner indicates that it is "unclear as to how [those] distance[s] [are] measured relative to generators with or without reflectors having various characteristics alone or in arrays." Ans. 14. For purposes of this opinion, we adopt a broad interpretation of "distances" as recited in claim 4 as being any distance between the generators or any distance between the generators and the substrate. 7 Appeal2018-004593 Application 13/786,240 least one operating frequency band." Pavliscak, col. 10, 11. 33-37. However, the Examiner has not adequately explained how or why this teaching regarding distance between adjacent plasma areas would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sortais so as to arrange central rod 3 and coupler rods 6, 7, 8 (i.e., the Examiner's plurality of high frequency generators (Final Act. 2)) at distances of (n' '/2)*A, where n'' is a natural number ranging from 1 to 12, as called for in claim 4. For example, Sortais discloses a plasma source having plasma area 14 extending beyond the ends of rods 3, 6, 7, 8. Sortais ,r 45, Fig. 4. Although Sortais also discloses an assembly of such plasma sources (id. f 49, Figs. 6A-6B), there is no indication that the distances between plasma areas in an assembly of plasma sources would also be indicative of the specific distances between the rods or generators. Thus, we also do not sustain the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Sortais, Nehls, and Pavliscak. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3-7, 9-14, and 16-21 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Sortais, Nehls, and Pavliscak is REVERSED. REVERSED 8