11495077 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2016)

Ex Parte Mogilevsky

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 13, 2016

11495077 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 111495,077 07/28/2006 Radian Mogilevsky 20306 7590 01/13/2016 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP 300 S. WACKER DRIVE 32NDFLOOR CHICAGO, IL 60606 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. 05-651-A 2434 EXAMINER BAREFORD, KATHERINE A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1718 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 01/13/2016 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 RADION MOGILEVSKY1 Appeal2014-002625 Application 11/459,077 Technology Center 1700 Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134, Appellant appeals from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kim (US 5,028,572 issued July 2, 1991) in view of Ulrich (US 3,771,585 issued November 13, 1973), Yu (US 2003/0191010 Al published October 9, 2003), and Kamiya (US 5,549,874 issued August 27, 1996). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6. We AFFIRM. 1 Radion Mogilevsky is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal2014-002625 Application 11/459,077 Appellant claims a method for producing a purified alumina block of predetermined diameter comprising continuously depositing melted alumina particles onto a deposition substrate to form a liquid layer and maintaining the liquid layer while moving the substrate in three independent directions including rotation, translation motion along its horizontal axis, and pull down motion along its vertical axis, and allowing a portion of the liquid layer to directionally solidify on the substrate so as to produce a purified alumina block having a purity level of 99.999% (sole independent claim 1). Further details of the claimed method are set forth in representative claim 1, a copy of which taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief appears below. 1. A method for producing a purified alumina block of predetermined diameter, said method comprising the steps of: generating plasma; delivering alumina particles, wherein the alumina particles include impurities, into the plasma so as to melt the particles and vaporize a first portion of the impurities present in the particles; continuously depositing the melted particles onto a deposition substrate to form a liquid layer on the deposition substrate and maintaining the liquid layer while moving the deposition substrate in three independent directions including rotation along its vertical axis, back and forth translation motion along its horizontal axis, and pull down motion along its vertical axis; allowing a portion of the liquid layer to directionally solidify on the substrate so as to produce a purified alumina block having a predetermined diameter and having a purity level of 99 .999%; and removing the purified alumina block from the substrate, wherein as the liquid layer directionally solidifies, a solid-liquid interface is formed between the liquid layer and the purified alumina block whereby a second portion of the impurities that is present in the melted 2 Appeal2014-002625 Application 11/459,077 particles is retained in the liquid layer during directional solidification and becomes solidified in an outer portion of the purified alumina block. Appellant does not present separate arguments specifically directed to dependent claims 2-3 (App. Br. 2-13). Therefore, these dependent claims will stand or fall with independent claim 1. We sustain the above rejection for the reasons given in the Final Action and in the Answer with the following comments added for emphasis and completeness. The Examiner finds that Kim teaches a method for producing a purified alumina block of predetermined diameter wherein a liquid layer of melted alumina particles is deposited on a deposition substrate/mold plate while moving the substrate in a translation motion and a pull down motion as recited in claim 1, but not in a rotation direction as claimed (Final Action 2-3). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Kim by rotating the substrate in order to provide uniform distribution of material supplied thereto as taught by Ulrich (id. at 3 (citing Ulrich, Fig., col. 2, 11. 55---68, col. 3, 55---65)). Appellant states that Ulrich discloses a "plasma burner ... surrounded by an insulating jacket to screen the plasma from the sponge metal [starting- material] and to confine it to the direction of the steepest potential gradient, thus keeping the plasma burner in a fixed vertical position relative to the mold" (App. Br. 8 (citing Ulrich, Abstract, Fig., col. 1, 11. 55---66)). Appellant argues "[t]his disclosure would be considered teaching away from 3 Appeal2014-002625 Application 11/459,077 employing horizontal motions with rotational and vertical up/down motions in a process" (id.). Appellant's argument lacks persuasive merit. As correctly indicated by the Examiner (Ans. 8-9), Appellant does not explain why Ulrich's disclosure is considered to teach that rotating Kim's substrate would be undesirable, thereby teaching away from the proposed modification of Kim. In this regard, we emphasize that the Ulrich disclosure described by Appellant relates to "preventing a canceling of the potential difference" (Ulrich, col. 1, 11. 60-61 (cited by Appellant)) in a "plasma burner 2 ... of the transferred-arc type" (id. at col. 2, 11. 65---66 (cited by the Examiner)) and that Kim discloses several types of plasma burners or torches other than the transferred-arc type used by Ulrich (Kim, col. 6, 11. 56---63 (cited by the Examiner at Final Action 2)). Appellant does not provide the record of this appeal with any explanation why Ulrich's disclosure concerning a plasma burner of the transferred-arc type is considered to be applicable to, much less teach away from modifying, the plasma burners or torches of Kim that are not of the transferred-arc type. For the reasons given in the Final Action, the Answer, and above, Appellant fails to show harmful error in the Examiner's Â§ 103 rejection. The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. 4 Appeal2014-002625 Application 11/459,077 No time for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 35 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l). AFFIRMED sl 5