Ex Parte Lin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 18, 2016

11411579 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111411,579 0412612006
110407 7590 08/22/2016
Burris Law, PLLC
300 River Place Drive, Suite 1775
Detroit, MI 48207
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
HongyLin
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.
01 OOH-000246/US 6697
EXAMINER
PAIK, SANG YEOP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/22/2016 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):
docketing@burrisiplaw.com
kelly@burrisiplaw.com
angela@burrisiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HONGY LIN, JASON E. SMITH, and
DANIEL J. BLOCK
Appeal2014-001269
Application 11/411,579 1
Technology Center 3700
Before PA TRICK R. SCANLON, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1, 3-11, and 18, which are all of the pending
claims. An oral hearing was conducted on June 23, 2016. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Watlow Electric Manufacturing Company as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-001269
Application 11/411,579
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 18 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below.
1. A ceramic heater comprising:
a ceramic substrate;
a resistive heating element embedded within
the ceramic substrate; and
at least one thermocouple for measuring a
temperature of the ceramic substrate, the at least one
thermocouple having a pair of conductive wires of
dissimilar metals that are bonded to define a
junction, wherein the junction is directly bonded to
the ceramic substrate by an active brazing material,
wherein the active brazing material is in
direct contact with the ceramic substrate, the
thermocouple junction, and the conductive wires,
the junction being surrounded by the active brazing
material.
Appeal Br. 12, Claims App.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Morris
Une
Sasada
Hegner
Hecht
Ohashi '069
Ohashi '775
Ito
Hiramatsu
Nakamura
Tada
us 4,111,718
us 4,932,582
us 5,176,451
us 5,670,063
us 5,877,475
US 6,268,069 B 1
US 2002/0134775 Al
US 2004/0026402 Al
US 2004/0117977 Al
US 2004/0149719 Al
US 2006/0243776 Al
2
Sept. 5, 1978
June 12, 1990
Jan. 5, 1993
Sept. 23, 1997
Mar. 2, 1999
July 31, 2001
Sept. 26, 2002
Feb. 12,2004
June 24, 2004
Aug. 5,2004
Nov. 2, 2006
Appeal2014-001269
Application 11/411,579
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us on appeal:
I. Claims 1, 3-9, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ohashi '775 or Hiramatsu, Ito, Hegner or Tada, Morris,
and Une or Ohashi '069.
II. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ohashi '775 or Hiramatsu, Ito, Hegner or Tada, Morris, Une or Ohashi
'069, and Nakamura or Sasada.
III. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ohashi '775 or Hiramatsu, Ito, Hegner or Tada, Morris, Une or Ohashi
'069, Nakamura or Sasada, and Hecht.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Appellants argue independent claims 1 and 18 together and do not
present any separate arguments for the patentability of dependent claims 3-
9. Appeal Br. 5-9. As such, we treat claims 1, 3-9, and 18 as argued as a
single group and select independent claim 1 as the representative claim in
accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
The Examiner finds that Ohashi '775 and Hiramatsu both disclose a
ceramic heater including, inter alia, at least one thermocouple disposed in a
recess in a ceramic substrate and having a pair of wires forming a bead
defining a junction. Final Act. 2. The Examiner also finds that Ohashi '775
and Hiramatsu both disclose using "a soldering or brazing material ... to
bond the thermocouple to the ceramic substrate." Id. The Examiner finds
that neither Ohashi '775 nor Hiramatsu "explicitly show that the soldering or
brazing material is of an active brazing material which also comes in direct
3
Appeal2014-001269
Application 11/411,579
contact with the conductive wires that are of dissimilar metals wherein the
brazing material surrounds the junction." Id. at 2-3.
The Examiner further finds that "Ito shows a thermocouple with
conductive wires that come in direct contact with a ceramic substrate which
are bonded with resin or ceramic materials," and concludes that, in view of
Ito, "it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art ... to not
only bond the thermocouple junction but also the conductive line to more
securely bond the thermocouple to the ceramic substrate." Id. at 3.
Also, the Examiner finds that both Hegner and Tada disclose
providing "an active brazing material including silver and titanium alloys to
bond a metal to a ceramic material," and concludes that "in view of Hegner
or Tada, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use
the active brazing material to bond the thermocouple to the ceramic substrate
to improve the junction reliability without much deterioration due to high
temperature." Id.
Appellants argue that Ohashi '775 and Hiramatsu both fail to
"disclose or suggest junctions that are directly bonded to the ceramic
substrate." Appeal Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 2 ("[B]oth [Ohashi '775] and
Hiramatsu fail to disclose a junction within the meaning of Claims 1 or
18."). In particular, Appellants argue that because "[t]hermocouples are
known to generally include a metal sheath around the hot junction," element
17 of Ohashi '775 is not necessarily a "junction."2 Appeal Br. 6. According
to Appellants, element 17 is a thermocouple. Id.
2 Because we find that Ohashi '775 discloses a thermocouple junction
directly bonded to a ceramic substrate, for the reasons discussed below, we
4
Appeal2014-001269
Application 11/411,579
Appellants are correct that Ohashi '775 discloses that elements 17 are
thermocouples. Ohashi '775 i-fi-131, 33. Appellants do not argue, however,
that thermocouples 17 lack junctions. Rather, Appellants concede that the
thermocouples of Ohashi '775 have junctions. See Oral Hearing Transcript
4:7-8 (stating that Ohashi '775 and Hiramatsu "have to have a junction in
order to be a thermocouple"). Also, Appellants do not dispute the
Examiner's statement that states "[a]s acknowledged by [Appellants], a
junction in a thermocouple is known in the art." Ans. 6.
Thermocouple 17 is shown in Figure lb of Ohashi '775, which is
reproduced below.
Fill lb
I
\
' \
Figure 1 b shows thermocouple 17 "embedded in and fixed to" bottomed-
hole 14 in ceramic substrate 11. Id. i133. Thermocouple 17 is depicted as
comprising an oval structure having what appears to be two wires connected
thereto. The cross-hatching of the oval structure indicates that it is a solid
structure, suggesting that it is a bead or 'junction" joining the two wires.
need not consider whether Hiramatsu discloses this limitation and, thus, do
not address Appellants' arguments regarding Hiramatsu in this Decision.
5
Appeal2014-001269
Application 11/411,579
For these reasons, although Ohashi '775 does not expressly describe
thermocouples 17 as having junctions, we are persuaded that one of ordinary
skill in the art would understand that Ohashi '775 implicitly discloses that
thermocouples 17 have junctions. See MPEP § 2144.01 (''[1 Jn considering
the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only
specific teachings of the reforence but also the inferences which one skilled
in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.'~) (quoting In re
Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968)).
As noted above, Appellants assert that "[ t ]hermocouples are known to
generally include a metal sheath around the hot junction." Appeal Br. 6. To
the extent that Appellants are arguing that Ohashi '775 does not disclose
directly bonding a thermocouple junction to the ceramic substrate because
any such junction is enclosed by a metal sheath, we are not persuaded.
Appellants do not direct us to any disclosure in Ohashi '775 of a sheath
enclosing the junction or any other part of thermocouple 17. Moreover,
Figure 1 b, reproduced above, depicts thermocouple 17 without any sort of
sheath. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Ohashi '775 discloses
a thermocouple junction directly bonded to a ceramic substrate.
Next, Appellants argue that "Ito does not explicitly disclose that
element 27 is a junction of a thermocouple, nor does Ito disclose that the two
wires extending from element 27 are the conductive wires of dissimilar
metals." Id. at 6-7. Appellants also argue that various embodiments of Ito
use a sheath to surround the thermocouple junction and connect the
thermocouple to the ceramic substrate. Id. at 7. These arguments are not
persuasive because the Examiner does not rely on Ito to disclose such
features. Instead, the Examiner relies on Ito for disclosing only that the
6
Appeal2014-001269
Application 11/411,579
conductive wires of a thermocouple are directly bonded to a ceramic
substrate. Final Act. 3. The Examiner relies on Ohashi '775 to disclose a
thermocouple junction directly bonded to a ceramic substrate (id. at 2) and
Morris to disclose conductive wires of dissimilar metals (id. at 3).
Moreover, we are persuaded that Ito's thermocouple 27 implicitly includes a
junction for reasons similar to those discussed above in connection with the
thermocouple of Ohashi '775.
In addition, we agree with the Examiner that, although Figures 4 and 5
of Ito show a thermocouple with a sheath, Figures 2 and 3 show a
thermocouple without a sheath. See Ans. 7. In response, Appellants argue
that
in Ito, Figures 2 and 3 represent block diagrams that schematically
illustrate a ceramic heater, while Figures 4 and 5 represent sectional
views that show the structure of the temperature measuring element
(see Ito, paragraphs [0031 ]-[0034]). One skilled in the art will
understand that block diagrams are not intended to define specific
structural details of a device, but rather such structural details are
more appropriately shown through sectional views of the device.
Ito describes multiple times throughout the specification that the
thermocouple 44 has a sheath S that is brought into contact with the
ceramic substrate (see Ito, for example, paragraphs [0073]-[0076],
[0082], [0098], [O 126], [O 182], [O 185], and [021 OJ).
Reply Br. 2-3. These arguments do not convince us, however, that Ito
requires a sheath for every thermocouple. Although Figures 2(a) and 3 of
Ito depict some elements (i.e., memory unit 21, computation unit 22, and
control unit 23) in block form, thermocouple 27 is not depicted in block
form. As also shown in Figure 2(b ), thermocouple 27 is shown structurally
in sectional view as being directly bonded to ceramic substrate 11. And
even if this embodiment of Ito did include a sheath enclosing thermocouple
7
Appeal2014-001269
Application 11/411,579
27, we still determine that Ohashi '775 discloses a thermocouple junction
directly bonded to a ceramic substrate for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding the Examiner's reliance on Hegner or Tada as disclosing
using an active brazing material to bond metal to ceramic, Appellants argue
that neither of these references mentions "a temperature sensor or a
thermocouple and thus provides no suggestion or teaching as to how to
improve rapid thermal response of the thermocouple by using active brazing
material to directly bond the junction to the ceramic substrate." Appeal
Br. 7-8. Appellants further argue that the claimed invention is aimed at
solving the problem of "delayed temperature response" in thermocouples,
and both Hegner and Tada fail "to recognize the problem of delayed thermal
response of the thermocouple in the ceramic heater and thus provide[] no
motivation to modify" the primary references. Id. at 8. In response, the
Examiner states:
Both Ohashi ['775] and Hiramatsu disclose a soldering or
brazing material to bond the thermocouple to the ceramic
substrate, but they do not disclose [using] an active brazing
material. As stated in the ground of rejection, [Hegner] and Tada
are applied to show an active brazing material that includes silver
and titanium alloys to bond a metal to a ceramic material. While
[Hegner] and Tada do not show bonding of a thermocouple, they
are applied to show a known brazing material between metals
and ceramics as Ohashi ['775] and Hiramatsu show a soldering
and brazing between metals and ceramics. It is noted that a
simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
predictable result provides a basis to combine art.
Ans. 7-8.
We agree with the Examiner's position. The reason to modify a
reference does not have to originate from the references being combined, nor
do secondary references need to address the same problem addressed by the
8
Appeal2014-001269
Application 11/411,579
claimed invention. The rationale for combining references can be gleaned
from a variety of sources. See DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co.
Deutsch/and KG v. CH Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
("The motivation need not be found in the references sought to be combined,
but may be found in any number of sources, including common knowledge,
the prior art as a whole, or the nature of the problem itself."). Here, the
Examiner concluded it would have been obvious to use an active brazing
material, as taught by Hegner or Tada, to bond the thermocouple to the
ceramic substrate of Ohashi '775 because this modification would "improve
the junction reliability without much deterioration due to high temperature."
Final Act. 3. We find no error in this conclusion despite the fact that neither
Hegner nor Tada involves bonding a thermocouple to a ceramic substrate.
See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) ("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").
Last, Appellants argue that none of Morris, Une, or Ohashi '069 teach
using an active brazing material to bond a thermocouple junction to a
ceramic substrate. Appeal Br. 9. This argument is not persuasive because
the Examiner does not rely on Morris, Une, or Ohashi '069 to disclose this
limitation. Instead, as discussed above, the Examiner relies on Hegner or
Tada to disclose using an active brazing material. Final Act. 3. For the
reasons discussed above, we find no error in the Examiner's conclusion that
it would have been obvious to use an active brazing material, as taught by
9
Appeal2014-001269
Application 11/411,579
Hegner or Tada, to bond the thermocouple to the ceramic substrate of
Ohashi '775.
In view of the above, Appellants' arguments do not apprise us of
error, and we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 3-9 and 18
grouped therewith.
Re} ections II and III
Regarding claim 10, which depends from claim 8, the Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to surround thermocouple wires
with insulation as taught by Nakamura or Sasada. Final Act. 4. Regarding
claim 11, which depends from claim 10, the Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to use a ceramic material for the insulation as
taught by Hecht. Id. at 5. We find no error in these conclusions.
Appellants present no additional arguments regarding the rejections of
claims 10 and 11; instead, Appellants rely on the reasons advanced in
connection with claim 1 in asserting patentability of claims 10 and 11.
Appeal Br. 9-11. Because we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3-9, and 18
for the reasons discussed above, we also sustain the rejections of claims 10
and 11.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 3-11, and
18.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
10
Appeal2014-001269
Application 11/411,579
AFFIRMED
11