14285730 - (R) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2019)

ANSELL, OLIVER et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 15, 2019

14285730 - (R) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 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. 14/285,730 05/23/2014 OLIVER ANSELL WLJ.222 1046 20987 7590 10/15/2019 VOLENTINE, WHITT & FRANCOS, PLLC ONE FREEDOM SQUARE 11951 FREEDOM DRIVE, SUITE 1300 RESTON, VA 20190 EXAMINER KENDALL, BENJAMIN R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1718 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/15/2019 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): aloomis@volentine.com cjohnson@volentine.com lsmith@volentine.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte OLIVER ANSELL, BRIAN KIERNAN, TOBY JEFFERY, and MAXIME VARVARA ____________ Appeal 2018-0083331 Application 14/285,730 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING This is in response to a Request for Rehearing (“Req. Reh’g”), dated September 11, 2019, of our Decision, mailed July 11, 2019 (“Decision”), wherein we affirmed the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of all appealed claims. We have reconsidered our Decision, in light of Appellant’s comments in the Request for Rehearing, and we find no error in the disposition of the § 103 rejections. Appellant states that the “Board seems to have misapprehended” the difference between various etching and plasma deposition processes (Req. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SPTS Technologies Limited (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2018-008333 Application 14/285,730 2 Reh’g 1). Appellant contends that “the cleaning (etching) of Matsubara has no relation whatsoever to etching processes such as those” of Ishizuka (Req. Reh’g 2). Appellant contends that “the Board’s decision relies on [these] misapprehensions” (Req. Reh’g 4). These arguments are not persuasive of any error in our Decision. Appellant’s argument fails to properly consider the applied prior art as a whole and the inferences and creative steps that one of ordinary skill in the art would have employed as discussed in our Decision (e.g., Decision 6) and in the Examiner’s Answer. Appellant has not persuasively shown error in the Examiner’s determination that one of ordinary skill in the art would have predictably used an apparatus such as described in Ishizuka for both etching and deposition processes (e.g., Ans. 14). Appellant fails to explain why it would not have been within the ordinary level of skill, using no more than ordinary creativity, to modify such an apparatus with an edge protection element, as exemplified in Matsubara, as well as with a removable guide as taught in Cooke. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton”). Furthermore, “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Accordingly, no persuasive merit is present in Appellant’s arguments made in the Request for Rehearing. Thus, we decline to modify our decision to affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of the appealed claims. Appeal 2018-008333 Application 14/285,730 3 Outcome of Decision on Rehearing: Claims 35 U.S.C. § Basis Denied Granted 7, 17–20 103 Ishizuka, Matsubara, Cooke 7, 17–20 21 103 Ishizuka, Matsubara, Cooke, with Koshiishi or Hara 21 8, 22–25 103 Ishizuka, Matsubara, Yoon 8, 22–25 Overall Outcome 7, 8, 17–25 Final Outcome of Appeal after Rehearing: Claims 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 7, 17–20 103 Ishizuka, Matsubara, Cooke 7, 17–20 21 103 Ishizuka, Matsubara, Cooke, with Koshiishi or Hara 8, 22–25 103 Ishizuka, Matsubara, Yoon 8, 22–25 Overall Outcome 7, 8, 17–25 Appeal 2018-008333 Application 14/285,730 4 In conclusion, Appellant’s Request is denied with respect to making changes to the final disposition of the rejections. This Decision on the Request for Rehearing incorporates our Decision, mailed July 11, 2019, and is final for the purposes of judicial review. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 (a)(1). 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)(v). DENIED