Ex Parte Jenneskens et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 16, 201613643896 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/643,896 03/05/2013 Leonardus Wijnand Jenneskens 31239-11 3679 131890 7590 12/16/2016 Patent Docket Administrator Lowenstein Sandler LLP 65 Livingston Avenue Roseland, NJ 07068 EXAMINER TAD AY YON ESLAMI, TABASSOM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1712 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/16/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LEONARDUS WIJNAND JENNESKENS, JOHN WILHELM GEUS, BERNARD HENDRIK REESINK, PIETER HILDEGARDUS BERBEN, and JACOBUS HOEKSTRA Appeal 2015-005300 Application 13/643,896 Technology Center 1700 Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, AVELYN M. ROSS, and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Examiner finally rejected claims 7 and 9—12 of Application 13/643,896 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated and claims 8 and 13—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. 2—5 (Aug. 14, 2014). Appellants1 seeks reversal of these 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 BASF Corporation is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2015-005300 Application 13/643,896 BACKGROUND The present application relates to a process for producing nano particles comprising a metal-carbon body. Such particles may be useful in magnetic resonance imaging and other applications. Spec. 1. Claims 7 and 8 are representative of the pending claims and are reproduced below: 7. A process for the production of a nano-particle comprising a metal-carbon body, wherein said metal-carbon body comprises ferromagnetic metal alloy particles at least partly encapsulated within graphitic carbon, which process comprises impregnating carbon containing body with an aqueous solution of at least one ferromagnetic metal precursor, drying the impregnated body, followed by heating the impregnated body in an inert and substantially oxygen-free atmosphere at a temperature of 450 to 600 °C, thereby reducing the metal compounds to the corresponding metal alloy. 8. A process for the production of a nano-particle comprising a metal-carbon particle, wherein said metal-carbon particle comprises ferromagnetic metal particles at least partly encapsulated within graphitic carbon, which process comprises impregnating a carbon containing body with an aqueous solution of a metal precursor, drying the impregnated body, followed by heating the impregnated body in an inert and substantially oxygen-free atmosphere at a temperature to above 700 °C, thereby reducing the metal compound to the corresponding metal. Appeal Br. (Claims App.) 11. 2 Appeal 2015-005300 Application 13/643,896 REJECTIONS On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections: 1. Claims 7 and 9—12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Schlogl et al. (US 2009/0220767 Al, pub. Sep. 3, 2009) (“Schlogl”). Final Act. 2. 2. Claims 8, 14, 16—18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Schlogl in view of Arhancet et al. (US 2006/0229466 Al, pub. Oct. 12, 2006) (“Arhancet”). Id. at 3. 3. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Schlogl in view of Sarkar et al. (US 2008/0213367 Al, pub. Sep. 4, 2008) (“Sarkar”). Id. at 4. 4. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Schlogl in view of Iyer et al. (US 2010/0166870 Al, pub. Jul 1, 2010) (“Iyer”). Id. at 5. 5. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Schlogl in view of Arhancet and further in view of Sarkar. Id. at 5—6. DISCUSSION Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 9—12 as anticipated by Schlogl. Id. at 2. Appellants allege error on two bases. First, they argue that Schlogl does not teach the production of a nano-particle. Appeal Br. 6. Second, they argue that Schlogl does not teach “Applicants’ inert calcination process.” Id. In support of their first argument, Appellants assert that “the carbonaceous carriers in Schlogl are not nano particles” and that the claimed process yields “nano particles (not nano tubes or fibres).” Appeal Br. 7. In this regard, the Examiner determined as follows: “[t]he examiner disagrees; 3 Appeal 2015-005300 Application 13/643,896 claim 7 requires impregnating carbon containing body (which is active carbon particles in Schlogl, not CNT's or CNF's), and it meets the claim requirement.” Final Act. 6. Appellants provide no proposed construction of the term “nano particle” nor any explanation as to how the “nanosize carbon structures” of Schlogl differ from the claimed nanoparticles. Indeed, another reference of record refers to “nanoparticles including nanotubes and nanoparticles.” Iyer 11- Further, both the Specification and Schlogl teach broad and overlapping size ranges. The Specification provides that “nano-particles typically have a size (largest diameter) of typically less than 500 pm, preferably 100-200 pm, preferably less than 10 pm and even more preferably less 1 pm in size.” Spec. 8—9. Similarly, Schlogl teaches a broad range of carrier size including “mesoscopic carriers with sizes between 100 pm to more than 100 nm.” Schlogl 167. Schlogl further teaches that the carbon structures (such as carbon nanotubes (“CNT”) or carbon nanofibers (“CNF”)) that grow on the carrier have diameters that “range from 10 to 900 nm, for instance 20 to 800 nm, e.g. 30 to 700 nm, 40 to 600 nm, or 50 to 500 nm.” Schlogl 1 87. In view of the foregoing, and giving the term “nano particle” its broadest reasonable interpretation, we determine that Appellants have failed to show that the Examiner erred in finding that Schlogl teaches a “nano-particle” as required by claims 7 and 9—12. For their second argument, Appellants assert that Schlogl does not teach “Applicants’ inert calcination process.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellants contend that, rather than “heating the impregnated body in an inert and substantially oxygen-free atmosphere” as required by claim 7, “the impregnated carrier material is heated in an oxidizing atmosphere.” Id. 4 Appeal 2015-005300 Application 13/643,896 (citing Schlogl ]Hf 140-144). The Examiner concedes that Schlogl teaches a calcination process under oxidative conditions but contends that Schlogl also teaches a “passivation process in a nonoxidizing gas atmosphere.” Answer 2. In the Final Rejection, the Examiner finds that Schlogl discloses the following: ... drying the impregnated body (calcination at low temperature) [0141], followed by heating the impregnated body in an inert and substantially oxygen-free atmosphere (hydrogen and nitrogen) at 450C [0162], thereby reducing the metal compounds to the corresponding metal alloy [0163 lines 1-2]. Final Act. 2. Schlogl includes a section titled “Reducing and Optionally Activating the Catalyst (Step d).” Schlogl 1161 (heading). This portion provides that “the impregnated carrier material is thus subjected to the following reduction and optional activation steps prior to nanocarbon growth.” Id. 1161. Schlogl further provides that “[t]he actual reduction step is preferably conducted in the presence of hydrogen, optionally in admixture with an inert gas such as nitrogen.... The final temperature to be achieved during the reduction process preferably ranges from 250° C. to 600° C.” Id. 1162. Accordingly, we adopt the Examiner’s finding that Schlogl teaches “heating the impregnated body in an inert and substantially oxygen-free atmosphere.” Final Act. 2. In view of the foregoing, Appellants have failed to show reversible error in Rejection 1. Rejection 2. The Examiner rejected claims 8, 14, 16—18, and 20 as obvious over Schlogl in view of Arhancet. Final Act. 3. Claim 8 requires that the impregnated metal-carbon body be heated “to above 700- C thereby 5 Appeal 2015-005300 Application 13/643,896 reducing the metal compound to the corresponding metal.” The Examiner relies on Arhancet for its teaching to “heat[ ] a carbon body comprising metal precursor (iron acetate) [0164] to at least 700C [0243, 0245], to produce the transition metal.” Final Act. 4. Appellants argue that reliance on such teaching is improper as the cited portion of the reference “relate [s] to producing the transition metal composition of Arhancent, which are described throughout the specification, and specifically in paragraphs [0245, 0246], as transition metal nitride, transition metal carbide and transition metal carbide-nitride; not the reduction of the transition metal to the metal as claimed in the instant invention.” Appeal Br. 8. That is, the Examiner relies on Arhancet as teaching a heating process that yields a free transition metal (e.g., iron) while Appellants assert that Arhancet discloses a heating process that yields a transition metal composition such as iron nitride or iron carbide. Appellants are correct that the primary emphasis of the cited portion of Arhancet concerns the production of a transition metal composition for use as a catalyst. Specifically, it teaches that heating a transition metal precursor in the presence of certain carbon containing gasses (“a carbiding atmosphere”) will yield a metal carbide and heating it in the presence of certain nitrogen containing gasses (“a nitriding atmosphere”) will yield a metal nitride. See Arhancet || 0223 (describing nitriding atmosphere), 0226-0227 (describing carbiding atmosphere). It is apparent, however, that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that heating the transition metal precursor in the absence of a carbiding or nitriding atmosphere would yield a free transition metal. Arhancet teaches formation of free transition metal under certain circumstances: 6 Appeal 2015-005300 Application 13/643,896 It has been observed that during temperature programmed reduction used to produce a transition metal nitride in which the nitrogen-containing atmosphere comprises ammonia, the transition metal nitride thus formed (e.g., molybdenum nitride) may be reduced to form free transition metal. Id. 10270 (emphasis added); see also 10244 (“the transition metal composition may be formed by reduction of transition metal oxide to transition metal which combines with the carbon and/or nitrogen of the composition present in the nitriding, carbiding, or carbiding-nitriding atmosphere”) (emphasis added). Similarly, Arhancet includes an example where “a carbon-supported molybdenum catalyst,” rather than molybdenum nitride or carbide, is formed by heating. Id. 389-392 (Example 5). In view of the foregoing, Appellants have not provided sufficient reason to convince us of error in the Examiner’s finding that “Arhancent teach[es] heating a carbon body comprising metal precursor (iron acetate) [0164] to at least 700C [0243, 0245], to produce the transition metal.” Final Act. 4. Rejections 3—5. Appellants rely upon their prior arguments in support of their appeal of Rejections 3—5.2 These arguments are found unpersuasive for the reasons stated above. 2 In regard to claim 15, Appellants state “[additionally, to repeat that Applicant's invention does not relate to CNTs it is also unrelated to transistors.” This is insufficient to state an issue for appeal. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(iv) (requiring that a brief contain “arguments of appellant with respect to each ground of rejection, and the basis therefor, with citations of the statutes, regulations, authorities, and parts of the Record relied on. The arguments shall explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of rejection contested by appellant.”). 7 Appeal 2015-005300 Application 13/643,896 CONCLUSION The rejections of claims 7—20 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation