Ex Parte Garant et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 15, 2016

12551755 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/551,755 0910112009
29371 7590 06/17/2016
CANTOR COLBURN LLP - IBM FISHKILL
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John J. Garant
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
FIS920090015US1 3264
EXAMINER
GAITONDE, MEG HA MEHTA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1781
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/17/2016 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN J. GARANT,
ROBERT G. HAAS, BOUWE W. LEENSTRA,
and PHILLIP W. PALMATIER
Appeal2014-007733
Application 12/551,755
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, GEORGE C. BEST, and BRIAND. RANGE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 6, 8-14, 26, and 27 of
Application 12/551,755 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act.
(September 19, 2013). After entry of the Final Action, Appellants filed an
amendment which, in pertinent part, incorporated the limitations of claim 9
into independent claim 8 and canceled claim 9. Response After Final 3
(November 19, 2013). In an Advisory Action, the Examiner entered the
amendment and maintained the rejection of all of the pending claims.
Appeal2014-007733
Application 12/551,755
Advisory Action (November 27, 2013). Appellants 1 seek reversal of
rejections of claims 6, 8, 10-14, 26, and 27 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 REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
Claim 8 is the '750 Application's only independent claim. It is
reproduced below:
8. A bond metal injection tool, comprising:
a fill head having a sealed chamber for containing a
molten bond metal and a gas, and a nozzle at an outlet of the
chamber for directing a flow of the molten bond metal from the
chamber and then out through the nozzle into cavities in a
major surface of a mold; and
a pressure control device operable to controllably apply
pressure within the chamber to eject the bond metal from the
nozzle into the cavities when the pressure is applied within the
chamber, and to controllably apply a vacuum within the
chamber to prevent the bond metal from being ejected from the
nozzle when the vacuum is applied within the chamber, wherein
the fill head is movable from a first position in which the nozzle
is juxtaposed with at least one of the cavities or a plane defined
by the major surface, and a second position in which the nozzle
is juxtaposed with a plane defined by a parking surface of a
parking space, wherein the pressure control device is operable
to apply the vacuum within the chamber separately from an
operation of filling the cavities with the bond metal, to prevent
the bond metal from being ejected from the nozzle when the
nozzle is removed from the major surface to the parking surface
when bond metal remains in the fill head immediately after
filling the mold cavities in the major surface, wherein the
1 International Business Machines Corporation is identified as the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
2
Appeal2014-007733
Application 12/551,755
parking space has an edge surface extending in a direction
transverse to the plane defined by the parking surface, at least a
portion of the edge surface of the parking space being spaced
apart from an adjacent edge surface of the mold to define a gap,
wherein the pressure control device is operable to apply the
vacuum within the chamber to prevent the bond metal from
being ejected from the nozzle when the nozzle moves from the
first position away from the mold cavities across the gap to the
second position; and
a second nozzle to direct a flow of a second gas to the
gap between the mold and the parking space.
Appeal Br. 6 (Claims App.) (emphasis added identifying disputed claim
language).
REJECTION
After Appellants' amendment of independent claim 8 and cancellation
of claim 9, the Examiner maintains the following rejection:
1. Claims 6, 8, 10-14, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Applicants'
Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), Yamauchi,2 and Gruber. 3 Answer 2.
DISCUSSION
Appellants argue for reversal of the rejection of each of the claims
currently pending in the '755 Application on the basis of the limitations of
claim 8, the sole independent claim. See Appeal Br. 2--4; Reply Br. 2. In
particular, Appellants argue that the Examiner erred by finding that the
combination of prior art describes or suggests use of a second nozzle to
2 US 5,250,103, issued October 5, 1993.
3 US 6,231,333 Bl, issued May 15, 2001.
3
Appeal2014-007733
Application 12/551,755
direct a second gas to the gap between the mold in the parking space, as
required by claim 8. Id. For the following reasons, we agree.
First, we conclude that the Examiner has adopted an unreasonably
broad interpretation of the claim term "nozzle." In particular, the Examiner
concludes that "[a] 'nozzle' is defined as 'a projecting vent[]' or[,] in other
words, an opening that allows fluid flow." Answer 3. The reasoning in the
Examiner's Answer demonstrates that the Examiner has interpreted the term
"nozzle" to mean any opening that allows fluid flow. Id. at 3--4. The
Examiner's construction is unreasonably broad because it does not reflect
the fact that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
would have understood that a nozzle is more than a mere opening that allows
fluid flow. Rather, the nozzle is a device designed to control the direction or
characteristics of a fluid flow-particularly to increase the fluid's velocity.
Second, the Examiner's finding that Gruber describes a nozzle is
based upon this unreasonably broad claim interpretation. Id. at 3
("[B]ecause Gruber has disclosed that [the inert gas chamber has] a nitrogen
atmosphere (which requires some way for nitrogen to enter the chamber),
there must be an opening within a closed chamber that allows fluid flow, in
this case, the nitrogen flow. This opening is the nozzle.").
Third, the Examiner's finding that Gruber' s "nozzle" directs gas to the
gap between the mold and the parking space is unsupported. The Examiner
found that
[Gruber's] nozzle supplies nitrogen gas to the chamber,
and fills the chamber such that the process may be performed in
an inert environment. Because the chamber is filled with
nitrogen gas, and the mold, the parking space, and the gap in
between them are all in the chamber, the gap, by virtue of being
in the chamber, is also filled with nitrogen gas. The nozzle
4
Appeal2014-007733
Application 12/551,755
supplying the nitrogen gas, therefore, is directing a flow of
nitrogen gas to the gap.
Answer 3--4.
We disagree. Gruber does not describe directing the flow of gas in
any particular direction. See Gruber col. 4, 11. 17-20. Thus, the Examiner's
finding is not supported by evidence in the present record.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the rejection of claims 6, 8,
10-14, 26, and 27 of the '755 Application.
REVERSED
5