Ex Parte Alonzo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 27, 2017

12979989 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 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.
12/979,989 12/28/2010 John Alonzo Alonzo 3-54-52 3963
57040 7590
OFS Fltel, LLC
(FORMERLY FURUKAWA ELECTRIC NORTH AMERICA, INC.)
2000 NORTHEAST EXPRESSWAY
NORCROSS, GA 30071
EXAMINER
LEE, AIDEN Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1718
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2017 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):
Arochester@ofsoptics.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN ALONZO, JAMES FLEMING
and GEORGE ZYDZIK
Appeal 2015-008256
Application 12/979,989
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, KAREN M. HASTINGS,
and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision to finally reject claims 1—4, 6, and 8. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2015-008256
Application 12/979,989
The claimed invention is directed to an apparatus used to perform
plasma chemical vapor deposition (PCVD) processes. App. Br. 2. Claim 1
illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below:
1. Apparatus for performing plasma chemical vapor
deposition (PCVD) along an inner surface of a substrate tube,
the apparatus comprising
an insulative covering comprising at least one material
selected from the group consisting of: silica, alumina,
magnesia, zirconia or mullite, wherein the insulative covering is
disposed to only partially surround an external surface of the
substrate tube, the insulative covering separated an adjustable
distance S from the substrate tube, the adjustable distance S
creating a gap of an adjustable dimension suitable for allowing
the insulative covering to capture and retain thermal energy
created during the PCVD process.
Appellants (App. Br. 4) request review of the following rejections
from the Examiner’s Final Office Action:
I. Claims 1, 3, and 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Auwerda (US 4,714,589, issued December 22, 1987 and
further using Rau (US 4,877,938, issued October 31, 1989) as evidentiary
reference.1
II. Claims 2 and 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Auwerda and Moisan (US 4,944,244, issued July 31,
1990).
III. Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Auwerda and Fleming (US 5,979,190, issued November 9, 1999).
1 The statement of rejection presented in the Final Action has been modified
to reflect the cancellation of dependent claim 7. Final Act. 4; App. Br. 2.
Therefore, claim 7 is not before us for review on appeal. App. Br. 2.
2
Appeal 2015-008256
Application 12/979,989
OPINION
Rejection I (Claim l)2
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and
the Examiner, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s prior art rejection of
representative claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for the reasons presented by
the Examiner and add the following for emphasis.
Independent claim 1 is directed to a PCVD apparatus comprising an
insulative covering disposed at a distance from a substrate tube to partially
surround an external surface of the substrate tube so the insulative covering
can capture and retain thermal energy created during the PCVD process.
We refer to the Examiner’s Final Action for a statement of the
rejection. Final Act. 4—5.
Appellants argue Auwerda does not describe the claimed insulative
covering because Auwerda’s heat reflectors do not capture and retain heat as
claimed. App. Br. 4—5. According to Appellants, Auwerda’s heat reflectors
return heat substantially to the tube by reflection of the thermal radiation
from the tube. App. Br. 4—5; Auwerda col. 2,11. 22—25.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments for the reasons
presented by the Examiner. Ans. 6—8. Appellants’ arguments focuses on the
structure of Auwerda’s heat reflectors which allow them to reflect the heat
generated back to the substrate tube. App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 2; Auwerda col.
2,11. 22—25, 43—48. As noted by the Examiner, Auwerda’s heat reflectors
2 Appellants present arguments only for independent claim 1. See Appeal
Brief, generally. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the
subject matter before us on appeal. Claims 3 and 6 stand or fall with claim
1.
3
Appeal 2015-008256
Application 12/979,989
comprise a substrate of silica or alumina, the same materials used for the
claimed insulative covering. Final Act. 4; Ans. 6—7; Auwerda Figure 1, col.
2,11. 43—45, col. 4,11. 41^44. Appellants have not adequately explained why
the silica/alumina substrate of Auwerda’s heat reflector would not capture
and retain some heat generated by the PVCD process.
Moreover, while Auwerda discloses the use of a reflective layer on its
silica/alumina substrate, we note that the language of claim 1 describing the
insulative covering is drafted using the transitional language “comprising”
and, thus, does not exclude additional components from being part of the
insulative covering. Thus, given the open language of the claim and that
Appellants’ Specification contemplates a reflection function for the
insulative covering, Appellants have not adequately distinguished the
structure of the insulative covering of the claimed PCVD apparatus from the
structure of the heat reflectors of the PCVD apparatus of Auwerda. Spec. Tflf
9, 23.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) for the reasons presented by the Examiner and given above.
Rejection II
Claims 2 and 4 require longitudinal slits or segments on the insulative
covering to allow for observation of the deposition process. Spec. 10, 24.
The Examiner relied on Moisan as teaching the use of longitudinal
slits parallel to a tube furnace in vapor deposition devices to observe the
interior of the furnace. Final Act. 7; Moisan Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4,11. 22—
26; col. 5,11. 43^16; col. 6,11. 35^10.
4
Appeal 2015-008256
Application 12/979,989
Appellants argue there is no motivation for combining the teachings
of Auwerda and Moisan because the envelope 44 of Moisan’s device cannot
be equated to heat reflector 3 of Auwerda as the envelope 44 is a portion of
the actual furnace within which the processing takes place. App. Br. 6.
Appellants’ argument is unavailing and does not adequately address
the Examiner’s reasons for combining the teachings of the cited art. Final
Act. 7; Ans. 9. Given that Auwerda and Moisan are both directed to vapor
deposition devices related to the production of optical fibers, Appellants
have not adequately explained why one skilled in the art would not have
been capable of modifying Auwerda’s heat reflectors to incorporate the
longitudinal slit of Moisan to monitor the reaction zone if so desired.
Auwerda col. 1,11. 47—50; Moisan col. 1,11. 6—7.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s prior art rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 2 and 4 for the reasons presented by the Examiner
and given above.
Rejection III
In addressing the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
(Rejection III), Appellants rely on the arguments presented when discussing
claim 1. App. Br. 7. Appellants do not address or further distinguish the
additionally cited secondary reference based on the additional limitations of
the respectively rejected claim.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s prior art rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 8 for the reasons presented by the Examiner and
given above.
5
Appeal 2015-008256
Application 12/979,989
ORDER
The Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1—4, 6, and 8 under
35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a) are affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
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
6