Ex Parte RAJ et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 14, 2017

12838455 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 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. 12/838,455 07/17/2010 GOVINDA RAJ 014279/AGS/SPARES/DP 6350 44257 7590 08/16/2017 PATTFRSON & SHFRTDAN T T P - - AnnlieH Materials EXAMINER 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600 HOUSTON, TX 77046 JAGAN, MIRELLYS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2855 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/16/2017 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): Pair_Eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GOVINDA RAJ, BOP ANNA ICHETTRIA, ASHISH BHATNAGAR, and CARIAPPA BADUVAMANDA Appeal 2016-007585 Application 12/83 8,45 5 Technology Center 2800 Before TERRY J. OWENS, DONNA M. PRAISS, and WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’ rejection of claims 1—16 and 21—24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellants claim a thermocouple. Claims 1 and 7 are illustrative: 1. A thermocouple comprising a thermocouple body having a nano coating of silver nanoparticles thereon. 7. A thermocouple, comprising: a thermocouple body; a first coating disposed over the thermocouple body, the first coating comprising a first material; Appeal 2016-007585 Application 12/838,455 a second coating disposed over the first coating, the second coating comprising a nano coating of nanoparticles of a second material different than the first material; and a third coating disposed over the second coating, the third coating comprising a third material different than both the first material and the second material. The References Benjamin US 7,080,941 B1 July 25,2006 Schwagerman US 2007/0258506 A1 Nov. 8, 2007 Chen US 2007/0265379 A1 Nov. 15, 2007 Ripley US 7,621,672 B2 Nov. 24,2009 The Rejections The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1, 2, 4—13, 15, 16, and 21—24 over Benjamin in view of Chen and claims 3 and 14 over Benjamin in view of Chen, Ripley and Schwagerman. OPINION We reverse the rejections. We need address only the independent claims (1 and 7).1 Claim 1 requires a thermocouple body having thereon a nano coating of silver nanoparticles. Claim 7 requires a thermocouple body having thereon a second coating comprising a nano coating of nanoparticles. Benjamin discloses a temperature sensing system (10) which “is able to operate effectively and reproducibly even in a high radio frequency [RF] environment” (col. 3,11. 58—60). The temperature sensing system (10) comprises a thermocouple probe (14) having around it, in order, an RF conductive stainless steel or nickel-based alloy sheath (16), a copper first 1 The Examiner does not rely upon Ripley or Schwagerman for any disclosure that remedies the deficiency in Benjamin and Chen as to the limitations in the independent claims (Final Act. 10—12). 2 Appeal 2016-007585 Application 12/838,455 cladding (18) to provide excellent RF conductance, and an optional silver second cladding (20) to prevent corrosion of the copper cladding (18) and provide excellent RF conductance (col. 4,11. 10-11, 21—26, 33—35, 50-58). “The combination of claddings 18, 20 can have a combined depth of about 0.001 inches to about 0.02 inches” (col. 4,11. 58—59). Alternatively, “the silver cladding [20] may be used alone” (col. 4,11. 60-61). “The combination of the original shielding sheath material 16 and the single or double cladding 18, 20 is effectively opaque to RF fields and can restrict any resulting current causing it to run along the external surface of the sheath to a ground which is provided” (col. 4,1. 65 — col. 5,1. 2). Chen “provides nanocomposites of functionalized, solubilized nanomaterials and host matrices where the nanocomposites provide increased electrical conductivity with lower electrical percolation thresholds, increased thermal conductivity with lower thermal percolation thresholds, or an improved mechanical property as compared to those of nanocomposites comprising the host matrix and nanomaterial other than the functionalized, solubilized nanomaterial” (| 14). The host matrix can be “a metal matrix (such as aluminum, titanium, iron, or copper)” (| 44). “[U]sing [as the functionalized, solubilized nanomaterial] a PPE [poly(phenylene ethynylene)] polymer with a thiol group at or near the end of a linear or branched side chain provides for enhanced interaction between f-s-SWNTs [functionalized, solubilized single walled nanotubes] and gold or silver nanoparticles (host matrices)” (156). Chen states that “[b]y providing electrical conductivity at acceptable loadings, embodiments of the present invention make possible applications such as electrostatic dissipation, electrostatic painting, electromagnetic interference (EMI) shielding, 3 Appeal 2016-007585 Application 12/838,455 printable circuit wiring, transparent conductive coatings” (1 69), and “[ajrticles of manufacture comprising a nanocomposite of the present invention include wire, printable circuit wire, coatings, transparent coatings, coatings for resist materials, resist materials, films, fibers, powders, inks, ink jettable nanocomposite solutions, paints, electrosprayed paints, EMI shields, conductive sealants, conductive caulks, conductive adhesives, opto electronic devices, for example, and other articles for electrically conductive applications such as electrostatic dissipation, electrostatic painting, or electromagnetic interference (EMI) shielding, for example” (| 70). The Examiner states that “[t]he rejections are based on replacing the silver shielding of Benjamin with a nanocomposite layer having silver nanoparticles, as taught by Chen, in order to provide increased thermal conductivity and EMI shielding” (Ans. 3), and finds that “Chen discloses a nanocomposite having a host matrix (paragraph 37), wherein the host matrix is made of silver nanoparticles (paragraph 56), and wherein the nanocomposite provides increased thermal conductivity and EMI shielding (paragraphs 14, 69, 71). Therefore, Chen does teach that a nano coating of silver nanoparticles provides EMI shielding” (id.). Establishing a prima facie case of obviousness requires an apparent reason to modify the prior art as proposed by the Examiner. See KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The Examiner does not establish that 1) Chen’s f-s-SWNTs in a silver nanoparticle host matrix with the interaction between them enhanced by a PPE polymer with a thiol group at or near the end of a linear or branched sidechain (| 56) would provide increased thermal conductivity or EMI shielding relative to Benjamin’s silver cladding (20), or 2) in view of 4 Appeal 2016-007585 Application 12/838,455 Benjamin’s disclosure that lower thermal conductivity provides the benefit of reduced heat transmission along the shaft (col. 4,11. 60-64), increased thermal conductivity would be desirable. Nor does the Examiner establish that Chen’s f-s-SWNTs in a silver nanoparticle host matrix (| 56) would provide Benjamin’s silver cladding (20)’s excellent RF conductance or prevention of copper cladding (18) corrosion (col. 4,11. 55—58), or that Chen would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to forgo those benefits. Thus, the Examiner, due to not establishing an apparent reason why Benjamin and Chen would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine their disclosures as proposed by the Examiner, has not established a prima facie case of obviousness of the Appellants’ claimed thermocouple. DECISION/ORDER The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1, 2, 4—13, 15, 16, and 21—24 over Benjamin in view of Chen and claims 3 and 14 over Benjamin in view of Chen, Ripley and Schwagerman are reversed. It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED 5