Robinson E. Lattimer

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 24, 2019

14600437 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 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.
14/600,437 01/20/2015 Robinson E. Lattimer K-5929USUS1 6610
27877 7590 09/24/2019
KENNAMETAL INC.
Intellectual Property Department
P.O. BOX 231
1600 TECHNOLOGY WAY
LATROBE, PA 15650
EXAMINER
LEE, AIDEN Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1718
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/24/2019 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):
k-corp.patents@kennametal.com
larry.meenan@kennametal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBINSON E. LATTIMER
____________

Appeal 2019-000198
Application 14/600,437
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, MICHAEL G. McMANUS,
and JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1 and 6–16 of Application
14/600,437 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 103 and 112. Final Act. (Aug. 24, 2017) 3–
13. Appellant1 seeks reversal of the rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.

1 The Appellant, Kennametal Inc., is identified as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-000198
Application 14/600,437

2

BACKGROUND
The present application generally relates to an intermetallic composite
(IMC) evaporator boat assembly described as useful for the evaporation of
metals. Spec. ¶ 1. The assembly includes an evaporator boat and a thermal
insulation package having a cavity where the “evaporator boat is removably
received.” Id. ¶ 3. The cavity is taught to be “open at its opposite ends.” Id.
¶ 10. Figure 2 of the Application is reproduced below.

Figure 2 shows an IMC evaporator boat assembly where the evaporator boat
22 is “exploded away” from the thermal insulation package 24. Id. ¶ 6. The
figure additionally shows heaters 50, 52 “electrically connected to each end
wall 34.” Id. ¶ 12.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with certain limitations bolded for emphasis:

Appeal 2019-000198
Application 14/600,437

3

1. An IMC evaporator boat assembly comprising:
an evaporator boat, the evaporator boat comprising a top
surface defining a pool, a side wall, an end wall, and a bottom
surface;
a thermal insulation package comprising a thermal insulation
body wherein the thermal insulation body contains a cavity, the
cavity comprising a side wall and a bottom surface;
wherein the evaporator boat is removably received within the
cavity such that the side wall of the evaporator boat contacts the
side wall of the thermal insulation package and the bottom
surface of the evaporator boat contacts the bottom surface of the
thermal insulation package, and such that the end wall of the
evaporator boat is exposed; and
wherein the evaporator boat is operatively connected to a
heater.
Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App’x) (emphasis added).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 10–12 and 14–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for
failure to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which the inventor regards as the invention. Final Act. 3–4.
2. Claims 1, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Epstein2 in view of Plumat et al.,3 Barnard et al.,4 and
Wilder.5 Id. at 4–5.

2 US 2009/0217876 A1, published Sept. 3, 2009.
3 US 3,673,006, issued June 27, 1972 (“Plumat”).
4 US 5,951,769, issued Sept. 14, 1999 (“Barnard”).
5 US 5,182,567, issued Jan. 26, 1993.
Appeal 2019-000198
Application 14/600,437

4

3. Claims 8, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Epstein, Plumat, Barnard, Wilder, and Kobayashi.6 Id. at 9–
10.
4. Claims 10–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Epstein, Plumat, Barnard, Wilder, and Rusinko et al.7 Id. at 10–12.
5. Claims 14–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Epstein, Plumat, Barnard, Wilder, Kobayashi, and Rusinko. Id. at
13.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 10–12 and 14–16 as
indefinite. Id. at 3–4. Appellant does not offer substantive argument on
appeal. Rather, Appellant states that “[t]he present antecedent basis
rejection is easily remedied by minor amendment and does not affect the
substantive issue[s] raised in this appeal.” Appeal Br. 4. Because Appellant
does not substantively oppose the rejection on the basis of indefiniteness, we
summarily affirm. Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313‒14 (Fed. Cir.
2008); see also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1205.02
(9th ed. Mar. 2014) (“If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not
addressed in the appellant’s brief, appellant has waived any challenge to that
ground of rejection and the Board may summarily sustain it, unless the
examiner subsequently withdrew the rejection in the examiner’s answer.”).

6 US 2011/0223552 A1, published Sept. 15, 2011 (“Kobayashi”).
7 US 7,494,616 B2, issued Feb. 24, 2009 (“Rusinko”).
Appeal 2019-000198
Application 14/600,437

5

Rejection 2. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 6, and 7 as obvious
over Epstein, Plumat, Barnard, and Wilder. Final Act. 4–9. In support of
the rejection, the Examiner finds that Wilder teaches a vapor evaporator
where each end of the container “is exposed for the purpose of connecting
heating element to each end of the container.” Id. at 7 (citing Figure 2).
Figure 2 of Wilder is reproduced below.

Figure 2 of Wilder shows a cutaway view of a metal evaporator. Wilder
3:48–49. The metal evaporator of Figure 2 includes heat shield 40
surrounding and spaced away from container 20. Id. at 5:30–34. We further
observe that Figure 3 of Wilder appears to teach a container 20 having
exposed end walls. Id., Fig. 3.
Wilder further teaches as follows:
[A]lthough the container thus far described would function as a
vapor source if an adequate heat source were provided, excessive
heat loss by radiation will be present from the container thus
described were it to be operated at the elevated temperatures
Appeal 2019-000198
Application 14/600,437

6

required to vaporize metals, making performance far from
optimal.

In the best mode, then, a shield is to be provided that will
significantly improve the thermal efficiency of the vapor source.
Although a multi-layered radiant heat shield may appear to be
desired in an application such as this, a practical approach is
obtained by the use of a single-layer radiant heat shield 40
surrounding the container 20 and spaced away from it.

Wilder, 5:21–34.
Appellant argues that the cited references and the nature of the
problem do not provide a reason to combine the teachings of the references
so as to arrive at an evaporator boat assembly where the side and bottom
walls of the evaporator boat are covered by a thermal insulation package and
the end walls are left exposed. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant argues that the
references, including Wilder, teach uniform heat retention. Id. Appellant
asserts that the heat shield of Wilder reflects heat over the entire body of the
evaporation container so as to maintain an isothermal condition. Id.
In its Reply Brief, Appellant concedes that Wilder teaches exposed
end walls, but argues that Wilder, taken as a whole, does not teach an
arrangement that would lead to unequal heating of the evaporator boat.
Reply Br. 2.
Appellant’s arguments do not squarely address the Examiner’s
reasoning. The Examiner determines that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have combined the teachings of the references in such a way that the
end walls of the evaporator boat are exposed “in order to connect heating
element 50 [of Wilder].” Answer 9; see also Final Act. 7 (“each end . . . is
exposed for the purpose of connecting heating element[s] to each end of the
Appeal 2019-000198
Application 14/600,437

7

container”). Appellant does not address the desirability of connecting a
heating element to the container end wall. Further, Appellant predicates its
argument on a need for uniform heat distribution but does not cite to any
portion of Wilder that teaches such point. Wilder primarily teaches that a
heat shield is desirable to prevent heat loss.
In view of the foregoing, we determine that Appellant has not shown
reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 6, and 7 as obvious
over Epstein, Plumat, Barnard, and Wilder.

Rejection 3. The Examiner rejected claims 8, 9, and 13 as obvious
over Epstein, Plumat, Barnard, Wilder, and Kobayashi. Final Act. 9–10.
The Examiner relies on Kobayashi for its teaching to use inorganic fibers,
such as silica, alumina, or alumina silicate. Id. at 9.
Appellant argues that the rejection of claims 8, 9, and 13 should be
reversed for the same reasons articulated with regard to Rejection 2. As we
have not found such arguments to be persuasive, we determine that
Appellant has not shown reversible error in this regard.
Appellant additionally argues that Kobayashi addresses chemical
vapor deposition (CVD) apparatuses where internal furnace temperatures
can reach 500–1000˚C while evaporator boat assemblies “often reach 1400–
1650˚C.” Appeal Br. 6 (citing Kobayashi ¶ 6 regarding CVD furnace
temperature). As a result, Appellant argues, Kobayashi does not teach the
suitability of silica or alumina fibers for evaporator boat assemblies.
In the Answer, the Examiner asserts that Kobayashi teaches that the
fibers are taught to be used for heat insulation in heat treatment apparatuses.
Answer 10. Accordingly, the Examiner finds, one of ordinary skill in the art
Appeal 2019-000198
Application 14/600,437

8

would have been led to use such fibers in a similar application. Id. at 10–11.
The Examiner further finds that Appellant has not provided support for the
proposition that the fibers taught by Kobayashi “cannot bear the temperature
condition 1400–1650˚C.” Id. at 11. We further observe that Appellant has
not provided citation to record evidence to support its assertion that
evaporator boat assemblies may reach 1400–1650 ˚C.
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Here, the Examiner
posits the combination of inorganic fibers known to be used in high heat
applications with a known function (thermal insulation body). Appellant
fails to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have regarded
such fibers as appropriate for the proposed combination.
Accordingly, Appellant has not shown reversible error in the rejection
of claims 8, 9, and 13 as obvious over Epstein, Plumat, Barnard, Wilder, and
Kobayashi.

Rejections 4 and 5. The Examiner rejected claims 10–12 as obvious
over Epstein, Plumat, Barnard, Wilder, and Rusinko. Final Act. 10–12. The
Examiner further rejected claims 14–16 as obvious over Epstein, Plumat,
Barnard, Wilder, Rusinko, and Kobayashi. Id. at 13. Appellant does not
present separate argument with regard to these rejections. Rather Appellant
relies upon its arguments presented with regard to Rejection 2. Appeal Br.
6–7. As we have not found such arguments to be persuasive, we determine
that Appellant has not shown reversible error in this regard.
Appeal 2019-000198
Application 14/600,437

9

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and
the Examiner’s Answer as well as those reasons set forth above, we
determine as follows:
Claim(s)
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
10–12, 14–16 § 112(b) 10–12, 14–16
1, 6, 7 § 103 Epstein, Plumat,
Barnard, and Wilder
1, 6, 7
8, 9, 13 § 103 Epstein, Plumat,
Barnard, Wilder, and
Kobayashi
8, 9, 13
10–12 § 103 Epstein, Plumat,
Barnard, Wilder, and
Rusinko
10–12
14–16 § 103 Epstein, Plumat,
Barnard, Wilder,
Rusinko, and
Kobayashi
14–16
Overall
Outcome
1, 6–16

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED