HENDRIKS, ROB JACOB. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 27, 2019

15387297 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2019)

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.
15/387,297 12/21/2016 ROB JACOB HENDRIKS NCC.001015A 4677
124676 7590 09/27/2019
Russell Ng PLLC
8729 Shoal Creek Blvd., Suite 100
Austin, TX 78757
EXAMINER
HORNING, JOEL G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1712
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2019 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):
stephanie@russellnglaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ROB JACOB HENDRIKS, PAUL ABEL, and ERICA COENEN
____________________

Appeal 2019-000456
Application 15/387,297
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Before MARK NAGUMO, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.

WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
February 22, 2018 decision rejecting claims 1–19 (“Non-Final Act.”).2 We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Novacentrix Corporation as the real
party in interest (Appeal Br. 3).
2 Because at least some of the claims were twice rejected (in Office Actions
mailed September 29, 2017 and February 22, 2018), appeal is permitted
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).
Appeal 2019-000456
Application 15/387,297

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure relates to a method for selectively depositing a
function material on a substrate as part of a printing process (Spec. 1). A
plate 31 having a first surface (the top surface of plate 31 in Fig. 3C below)
and a second surface (the bottom surface) is provided; a layer of light
scattering material 37 is applied onto the first surface and a layer of a
reflective material 38 is applied to second surface (Spec. 3). A group of
wells 36 are formed on the second surface, and a layer of light absorbing
material 34 is applied to the surface of wells 36 (id.). The wells are then
filled with a functional material (id.). This general structure is illustrated by
Fig. 3C:

Fig. 3C shows a printing device for use with the claimed method
The plate is then irradiated with a pulse of light to heat light absorbing
material 34, which generates a gas at the interface between the light
absorbing material and the functional material, which releases the functional
material from the wells onto a receiving substrate (id.). Details of the
claimed method are set forth in claim 1, which is reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
Appeal 2019-000456
Application 15/387,297

3
1. A method for depositing a functional material on a
substrate, said method comprising:
providing a plate having a first surface and a second
surface;
removing materials from said second surface to fom1 a
plurality of wells within said second surface, wherein said
plurality of wells have different depths;
depositing a light scattering material layer on said first
surface;
depositing a light absorbing material layer on said second
surface including said plurality of wells;
filling said plurality of wells with a functional material;
and
irradiating said plate with pulsed light to heat said light-
absorbing material in order to generate gas at an interface
between said light-absorbing material and said functional
material to release said functional material from said plurality
of wells onto a receiving substrate.

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–4, 6–14, and 16–19 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Aoyama3 in view of Prenen4 and Cho.5

3 Aoyama, et al., US 2012/0251772 A1, published October 4, 2012.
4 Prenen, et al., EP 2 660 352 A1, published November 6, 2013. (Note that
the first named inventor is Meinders, but the Examiner refers to “Prenen”
(Non-Final Act.) so we will also do so for consistency with the Examiner’s
Answer. Appellant makes reference to “Meinders” (Appeal Br. 5).
5 Cho, et al., US 2015/0333259 A1, published November 19, 2015.
Appeal 2019-000456
Application 15/387,297

4
2. Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Aoyama in view of Prenen and Cho, and further in view
of Duignan.6
DISCUSSION
Although Appellant formally indicates that only Rejection 1 is “to be
reviewed on appeal” (Appeal Br. 5), we note that Appellant makes an
argument regarding claim 5, which is only rejected in Rejection 2.
Accordingly, it appears as though Appellant sought to appeal the rejection of
claims 5 and 15. We will, therefore, consider arguments made in support of
the patentability of claims 5 and 15.
Other than claims 5, 6, and 11, Appellant does not offer separate
arguments for any claim. Therefore, we will focus our discussion on the
rejection of claim 1 over Aoyama in view of Prenen and Cho. The
remaining claims (other than claims 5 and 6) will stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner’s findings supporting the obviousness rejection are set
forth at pages 3–5 of the Non-Final Action. The Examiner finds that
Aoyama teaches a method for depositing functional material onto a substrate
which includes all of the limitations of claim 1, except that it does not
disclose (1) creating wells in the second surface of the plate by etching, or
(2) having a light scattering layer on the first surface of the substrate (Non-
Final Act. 4, 5). With regards to the creation of the wells by etching the
second surface of the plate, the Examiner finds that Prenen (which according
to the Examiner is “also directed towards methods for forming donor
substrates for light induced forward transfer processes”) teaches the

6 Duignan, US 2003/0178395 A1, published September 25, 2003.
Appeal 2019-000456
Application 15/387,297

5
formation of trenches (wells) in the donor sheet (corresponding to the
claimed plate) by machining or etching it (Non-Final Act. 4, citing Prenen ¶¶
67, 68). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious:
To…provide the plate in the process of Aoyama where material
(including the reflective layer, so the reflective layer is not
present in the wells) is removed from portions of the second
surface of the plate by an etching process in order to form the
plurality of wells within the second surface of Aoyama, since it
was known as an effective way to build the desired well
structures on such donor sheets and doing so would produce no
more than predictable results and allow for the transfer of
predefined high-resolution structures onto the receiving
substrate.
(Non-Final Act. 4).
With regards to the light scattering layer on the first surface of the
plate, the Examiner finds that Cho (said to be directed to thermal transfer
substrates) teaches the inclusion of a light scattering layer to allow for
uniform delivery of the light to a light absorbing layer (Non-Final Act. 5,
citing Cho ¶¶ 4, 53, and 62–63). According to the Examiner, it would have
been obvious to have included Cho’s light scattering layer on the first
surface of Aoyama’s plate to improve the uniformity of the light delivery to
the light absorbing layer (id.).
Appellant argues that “there are apparent conflicts between the
teachings of Aoyama and Meinders [Prenen]” because Aoyama teaches a
flat donor substrate from which functional materials drop down, while
Meinders (Prenen) teaches a donor sheet having trenches from which
function materials are expelled in an upward direction (Appeal Br. 6).
Therefore, according to Appellant, “it would not have been obvious to
Appeal 2019-000456
Application 15/387,297

6
combine the teachings” of the references “without further explanations”
(Appeal Br. 6). However, as explained in detail by the Examiner, “both
references are directed towards light induced transfer deposition processes,
where a “donor” substrate is first structured with wells (trenches) and coated
with precursor materials (material layers) so that through the action of light
energy on the "donor" substrate, the precursor materials in the layers thereon
can be transferred onto another substrate as a desired layer” (Ans. 3).
Appellant argues in the Reply Brief, that the references differ because
Aoyama builds up its wells (like an above-ground parking garage), while
Prenen digs down its trenches (like an underground parking garage) (Reply
Br. 2). The Examiner, however, has explained that the “building up” versus
“digging down” techniques were known alternatives at the time of the
invention (Ans. 3–4) – a finding that is undisputed by Appellant. Moreover,
as found by the Examiner, a person of skill in the art would have been
motivated to use Prenem’s etching technique in Aoyama’s process “in order
to further be able to produce trenches of varying sizes and thus be able to
transfer precursor structures of variable sizes” (Ans. 4).
Appellant argues that because Aoyama teaches wells made by
building up layers, a person of skill in the art would have had no reason to
use the etching method taught by Prenen (Appeal Br. 6). This argument is
not persuasive, because the Examiner has explained why a person of skill in
the art would have used the etching technique taught by Prenen: “since it
was known as an effective way to build the desired well structures on such
donor sheets and doing so would produce no more than predictable results”
(Non-Final Act. 4)

Appeal 2019-000456
Application 15/387,297

7
Appellant also argues that claim 11 would not have been obvious,
because the claimed coating and depositing steps “are not disclosed by
Aoyama, Meinders and/or Cho” (Appeal Br. 7). To the extent that Appellant
is arguing that none of the references individually teaches each of the
claimed steps, that argument is not persuasive because the rejection is based
on a combination of the teachings of the references. To the extent that
Appellant is arguing that the combined teachings of the references fail to
disclose the claimed coating and depositing steps, no explanation of why the
Examiner has erred in concluding otherwise is presented. Without such an
explanation, the naked assertion that art fails to teach the claimed limitations
is not persuasive.
Finally, Appellant argues that Meinders does not disclose that the
claimed removing step includes laser drilling (claim 5) or etching (claim 6).
With regards to claim 5, the Examiner relies on the teachings of Duignan to
provide a reason to use laser drilling in the claimed removal step (Non-Final
Act. 6–7). Appellant does not challenge these findings (see Reply Br.,
generally). With regards to the etching step of claim 6, Appellant’s
argument is not persuasive because Prenen (Meinders) specifically teaches
the use of an etching step (see ¶ 68).
Accordingly, we determine that the preponderance of the evidence of
record supports the obviousness rejections, which we therefore sustain.

Appeal 2019-000456
Application 15/387,297

8
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6–14, and
16–19
§ 103
Aoyama, Prenen,
and Cho
1–4, 6–14, and
16–19

5 and 15 § 103
Aoyama, Prenen,
Cho, and Duignan
5 and 15
Overall Outcome 1–19

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)(iv).

AFFIRMED