Ex Parte Park

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 10, 2017

13860393 (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2017)

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.
13/860,393 04/10/2013 Jaeyoung Park 383654-991101 8502
26379 7590 05/12/2017
DLA PIPER LLP (US )
2000 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
EAST PALO ALTO, CA 94303-2248
EXAMINER
KENDALL, BENJAMIN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1718
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/12/2017 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):
PatentDocketingU S -Palo Alto @ dlapiper. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAEYOUNG PARK
Appeal 2016-007013
Application 13/860,393
Technology Center 1700
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10-16, 18—20, 26,
28-32, 34, 57, and 58.
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal
(emphasis added):
1. An apparatus for generating plasma, comprising:
a pulsed radio frequency source that is driven with a
pulse duration and has a resonance circuit with at least one
capacitor in series with an inductive antenna to generate a
1 The real party in interest is stated to be PlasmaNano (Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2016-007013
Application 13/860,393
pulsed radio frequency signal wherein the pulse duration is less
than 10 ms and the radio frequency is less than 10 MHz;
a reactor chamber that contains a carrier gas and one or
more reactive precursors with a pressure of between 1 torr and
2,000 torr;
the inductive antenna, coupled to the pulsed radio
frequency source and to the resonance circuit, that surrounds
the reactor chamber, and
wherein the pulsed radio frequency signal is delivered to
the inductive antenna that initiates a breakdown of the carrier
gas and one or more reactive precursors and generates a plasma
due to the breakdown of the carrier gas and one or more
reactive precursors.
The Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a):
(a) claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10-13, 15, 16, 20, 26, 28—32, 34, 57, and 58
as unpatentable over Flamm et al. (US 6,858,112 B2, issued Feb. 22, 2005)
(“Flamm”) in view of Hopwood (US 5,942,855 A, issued Aug. 24, 1999)
(“Hopwood”) and Sumiya et al. (US 2002/0114897 Al, published Aug. 22,
2002) (“Sumiya”);
(b) claim 14 as unpatentable over Flamm in view of Hopwood and
Sumiya and further in view of Casey et al. (US 2013/0189446 Al, published
July 25, 2013) (“Casey”); and
(c) claims 18 and 19 as unpatentable over Flamm in view of
Hopwood and Sumiya and further in view of Kraus et al. (US 2003/0232513
Al, published Dec. 18, 2003) (“Kraus”).
ANAFYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellant’s contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence
2
Appeal 2016-007013
Application 13/860,393
supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of Appellant’s
claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10-16, 18—20, 26, 28—32, 34, 57, and 58 are
unpatentable over the applied prior art. We sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejections essentially for the reasons set out by the Examiner in the Answer.
We add the following primarily for emphasis.
The 103 Rejection based on Flamm in view ofHopwood and Sumiya
Appellant’s principal argument regarding claim 1 in the Appeal Brief
is that Flamm, Sumiya, and Hopwood do not disclose or suggest “a
resonance circuit with at least one capacitor in series with an inductive
antenna,” as recited in claim 1 (Appeal Br. 4—5). Specifically, Appellant
contends “Sumiya and Hopwood both fail to disclose or suggest this element
and the examiner relies on Flamm as disclosing this claim element with the
exception of pulse duration” {id. at 4.). Appellant argues Flamm discloses
wave adjustment circuits 24, 29 but does not disclose that these elements are
“the claimed pulsed resonance circuit with at least one capacitor in series
with an inductive antenna” (id. at 5.).
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because it is not directed to the
Examiner’s rejection. As stated by the Examiner at pages 15—17 of the
Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner finds the resonance circuit of Flamm does
not include at least one capacitor in series with an inductive antenna,2 as
recited in claim 1, but finds Hopwood discloses a resonance circuit having a
2 Although the Examiner finds Flamm does not disclose a resonance circuit
including at least one capacitor in series with an inductive antenna, as recited
in claim 1, Flamm discloses the use of capacitors with its wave adjustment
circuits in column 11, lines 1—10.
3
Appeal 2016-007013
Application 13/860,393
capacitor in series with an inductive antenna and concludes it would have
been obvious to modify FI am m in view of Hopwood.
At pages 1—3 of the Reply Brief, Appellant reviews the Examiner’s
rejection and embodiments of Flamm’s wave adjustment circuits, arguing
they are not the resonance circuit of claim 1. To the extent Appellant
continues to argue Flamm does not disclose a resonance circuit including a
capacitor in series with an inductive antenna, the argument is unpersuasive
for the reasons discussed above. To the extent Appellant is arguing the
wave adjustment circuits of Flamm are not a resonance circuit to generate a
pulsed radio frequency signal, as recited in claim 1, it is a new argument
raised in the Reply Brief. Appellant has not shown good cause why this
argument could not have been presented in the Appeal Brief. Therefore, we
will not consider arguments for claim 1 newly raised in the Reply Brief.
37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). Regardless, Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive
because Appellant asserts the wave adjustment circuit embodiments of
Flamm, such as the helical resonator of Flamm, are not a resonance circuit
without an explanation of why they are not the claimed resonance circuit.
Appellant also raises an argument at page 3 of the Reply Brief that
Hopwood does not use a radio frequency of less than 10 MHz. This new
argument will also not be considered. Nonetheless, this argument is
unpersuasive because the Examiner finds the wave adjustment circuits of
Flamm generate a pulsed radio frequency signal having a frequency of less
than 10 MHz (Ans. 2—3). Moreover, the argument does not consider what
the combination of the applied references would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. “[T]he test for combining references is not what the
4
Appeal 2016-007013
Application 13/860,393
individual references themselves suggest but rather what the combination of
disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the
art.” In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).
In addition, Appellant contends Flamm, Hopwood, and Sumiya do not
disclose an “inductive antenna, coupled to the pulsed radio frequency source
and to the resonance circuit, that surrounds the reactor chamber,” as recited
in claim 1. Appellant argues Sumiya does not disclose such an inductive
antenna (Appeal Br. 6) and Flamm does not disclose the inductive antenna
of claim 1 because “[tjhere is no disclosure in Flamm of the circuits of the
wave adjustment circuits and certainly no disclosure that the wave
adjustment circuits include capacitors in series” (Appeal Br. 7). This latter
argument regarding Flamm, which the Examiner finds to disclose the
inductive antenna of claim 1, is directed to the limitations of the resonance
circuit of claim 1, not the limitations of the inductive antenna. Therefore,
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues the inductive applicator 20 of
Flamm, which the Examiner finds is an inductive antenna,3 is not coupled to
the radio frequency (“rf’) power source 22, which the Examiner finds is a
pulsed radio frequency source,4 because “the rf power source 22 in Flamm is
coupled to the wave adjustment circuit 24 that is in turn coupled to the
inductive applicator 20 of Flamm” (Reply Br. 4—5). This is a new argument
that was not previously raised in the Appeal Brief. Regardless, Appellant’s
argument does not identify a reversible error in the Examiner’s interpretation
of “coupled” under its broadest reasonable interpretation in view of
3 Ans. 2-3.
4 Id. at 2.
5
Appeal 2016-007013
Application 13/860,393
Appellant’s Specification. In fact, Appellant’s statement illustrates how the
inductive applicator 20 is coupled to the rf power source 22 under the
Examiner’s interpretation of “coupled.” Thus, Appellant’s argument does
not distinguish the inductive applicator 20 of Flamm from the inductive
antenna of claim 1.
Appellant does not argue independent claim 28 and dependent claims
2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10-13, 15, 16, 20, 26, 29—32, 34, 57, and 58 separately from
claim 1 (Appeal Br. 4—7). Accordingly, we sustain the § 103 rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10-13, 15, 16, 20, 26, 28—32, 34, 57, and 58.
The 103 Rejection based on Flamm in view ofHopwood and Sumiya and
further in view of Casey
For claim 14, Appellant merely reiterates the arguments set forth in
support of the patentability of claim 1 and contends Casey does not remedy
the deficiencies of the references applied in the rejection of claim 1 (Appeal
Br. 8). Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, we sustain the § 103
rejection of claim 14.
The 103 Rejection based on Flamm in view ofHopwood and Sumiya and
further in view of Kraus
For claims 18 and 19, Appellant asserts Kraus does not disclose
supplying radio frequency power to a plasma in an amount more than 10 kW
during a pulse, as recited in claim 18, or less than 10 MW during a pulse, as
6
Appeal 2016-007013
Application 13/860,393
recited in claim 19, because Kraus discloses radio frequency power between
160 and 3000 W, citing paragraph 40 of Krause (Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 6).
This argument is unpersuasive because it does not address the
Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner finds Kraus discloses radio frequency
power for a plasma of “above 1000 W,” citing paragraph 42 of Kraus (Ans.
13). Paragraph 42 of Kraus supports the Examiner’s finding by disclosing a
radio frequency power of “above 1000 W” that is provided to a radio
frequency coil used in the plasma reactor of Kraus. The Examiner finds the
range of radio frequency power disclosed by Kraus overlaps with the ranges
of claims 18 and 19, which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (Ans.
19—20). Appellant’s arguments do not direct us to a reversible error in the
Examiner’s findings and obviousness determination.
Accordingly, we sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 18 and 19.
DECISION
The Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10-16,
18—20, 26, 28—32, 34, 57, and 58 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).
AFFIRMED
7