Ex Parte Calzia et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 30, 201412622754 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte KEVIN CALZIA and DAVID W. MOSLEY ____________________ Appeal 2012-011202 Application 12/622,754 Technology Center 1700 ____________________ Before CHARLES F. WARREN, PETER F. KRATZ, and JEFFREY T. SMITH, 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 reject claims 1 through 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appeal 2012-011202 Application 12/622,754 2 The claims are directed to a method of making a Group 3a ink and the Group 3a ink. App. Br. 8. Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below: 1. A Group 3a ink, comprising, as initial components: a polyamine solvent; a Group 3a material/organic complex, wherein the Group 3a material/organic complex is a Group 3a material/carboxylate complex comprising an indium cation complexed with at least one carboxylate anion selected from 2-ethylhexanoate, 2-ethylbutyrate, acetylacetonoate, trimethylacetate, acetate, formate and isovalerate; and, a reducing agent selected from ammonium formate, formic acid, ammonium oxalate, heptaldehyde and oxalic acid; wherein the molar ratio to the Group 3a material/organic complex is at least 10:1; wherein the Group 3a ink is a stable dispersion and wherein the Group 3a ink is hydrazine and hydrazinium free. The Examiner relied on the following references in rejecting the appealed subject matter: Arii US 2003/0087516 A1 May 8, 2003 Kodas US 2006/0083694 A1 Apr. 20, 2006 Van Duren US 2008/0280030 A1 Nov. 13, 2008 Li US 2009/0260670 A1 Oct. 22, 2009 Appellants, Appeal Brief 9, request review of the following rejections from the Examiner’s Final Office action: I. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Li and Kodas. Appeal 2012-011202 Application 12/622,754 3 II. Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Li, Kodas, and Arii. III. Claims 7, 9, and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Li, Kodas, and Van Duren. OPINION The dispositive issue for this appeal is: Did the Examiner err in determining that the combined teachings of Li and Kodas would have led one skilled in the art to a Group 3a ink comprising a Group 3a material/organic complex and a reducing agent wherein the ratio of reducing agent to Group 3a material/organic complex is at least 10:1 as required by the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 4?1, 2 We answer the question in the positive and REVERSE for the reasons presented by Appellants. The Examiner found that Li discloses a method of preparing a Group 3a ink comprising the steps of mixing a polyamine solvent and a Group 3a organic complex, such as indium acetate. Final Office Action 3; Li ¶¶ [0011], [0017], [0019], [0020], [0022]. The Examiner also found that Li’s composition is free of hydrazine or hydrazonium because Li does not disclose requiring these components. Final Office Action 4. The Examiner found that Li does not disclose the addition of a reducing agent to the ink. Id. at 3. The Examiner found that Kodas discloses a method of forming a 1 We limit our discussion to independent claim 1. 2 A discussion of Arii and Van Duren, relied upon by the Examiner in the separate rejections of claims 3, 7, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Final Office Action 4-5), is unnecessary for disposition of the present appeal. The Examiner relied upon these references for features not related to the dispositive issue. Appeal 2012-011202 Application 12/622,754 4 layer in a photovoltaic cell comprising depositing a solution containing a Group 3a carboxylate and a reducing agent to promote the reduction of the metal salt to the desired metallic form during subsequent heat treatment. Final Office Action 4; Kodas ¶¶ [0096], [0133], [00149]. The Examiner found that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a reducing agent in the Group 3a carboxylate solution of Li to promote reduction of the metal salt. Final Office Action 4. Appellants argue that the environment present during the creation of the multi-component particles of Kodas is vastly different from the environment present during the deposition of the precursor ink of Li. App. Br. 11; Li ¶ [0018]; Kodas ¶ [0034]. According to Appellants, Kodas uses the reducing agent to create an environment during formation of multi- component particles that promotes formation of a material in a desired chemically reduced form for inclusion in the multi-component particles while Li discloses creating an environment that facilitates the agglomeration of particles to form a film by using a chalcogen as a binder. App. Br. 10-11; Li ¶ [0018]; Kodas ¶ [0149]. Appellants further argue that Kodas does not disclose or suggest the claimed ratio of reducing agent to Group 3a material/organic complex and that the claimed excess of reducing agent would be outside the range of loading needed to accomplish the purpose of the reducing agent in Kodas for incorporating a Group 3a oxide or compound. App. Br. 11-12; Kodas ¶¶ [0077], [0078], [0084]. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness. Given the diverse nature of the ink compositions of Li and Kodas, the Examiner has not adequately explained why one skilled in the art would have modified the ink of Li to incorporate Appeal 2012-011202 Application 12/622,754 5 the reducing agent of Kodas absent impermissible hindsight. App. Br. 12. Further, even if the teachings of Li and Kodas are combined, the Examiner has not adequately explained why one skilled in the art would use the reducing agent in amounts that exceed the amounts needed by Kodas to accomplish the incorporation of Group 3a oxides. Id. at 11. Thus, the Examiner has not provided the requisite articulated reasoning to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 for the reasons presented by the Appellants and given above. ORDER The Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 are reversed. REVERSED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation