Ex Parte Quantrille et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 15, 201611846960 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 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. 11/846,960 08/29/2007 Thomas E. Quantrille 002018.00023 1359 22907 7590 12/19/2016 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. 1100 13th STREET, N.W. SUITE 1200 WASHINGTON, DC 20005-4051 EXAMINER VAN, QUANG T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/19/2016 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): eofficeaction @bannerwitcoff.com GPD@bannerwitcoff.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THOMAS E. QUANTRILLE and WILLIAM M. ROGERS Appeal 2014-009326 Application 11/846,960 Technology Center 3700 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JOHN C. KERINS, and AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Thomas E. Quantrille and William M. Rogers (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—5, 12, and 33—37. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2014-009326 Application 11/846,960 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A microwave absorbing and heatable food processing article comprising composite material that increases in temperature upon exposure to electromagnetic radiation, said composite material comprising single crystal silicon carbide whiskers, fibrils, or a blend thereof, in a matrix material that is substantially transparent to electromagnetic radiation, wherein the composite material has a dielectric loss tangent which is at least 100 times greater than that of the matrix material. REJECTIONS I. Claims 1—3 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Inukai (EP 0 432 794 Al, pub. June 19, 1991), Nixdorf (US 2005/0019567 Al, pub Jan. 27, 2005), and He (US 6,328,779 Bl, iss. Dec. 11, 2001). II. Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Inukai, Nixdorf, He, and Milewski (US 4,864,186, iss. Sept. 5, 1989). III. Claims 33—37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Inukai, Nixdorf, He, and Oku (US 5,231,269, iss. July 27, 1993). DISCUSSION Rejection I Appellants contend that Inukai’s matrix material is microwave- absorptive, and, thus, not “substantially transparent to electromagnetic radiation,” as required in claim 1. Appeal Br. 4; see id. at i (Claims App.). 2 Appeal 2014-009326 Application 11/846,960 Inukai supports Appellants’ contention, in that Inukai’s matrix material is silicon carbide, which Inukai describes as microwave energy-absorbent; the silicon carbide material is deposited in, on, or around a set of ceramic fibers or whiskers to form a composite structure comprising a silicon carbide matrix and ceramic fibers or whiskers, which reinforce the composite structure. Inukai, col. 2,11. 8—10; col. 3,11. 42—51; col. 4,11. 17—19; col. 5,11. 9—16; see also Spec. 4, 6 (discussing that silicon carbide absorbs microwave energy). The Examiner does not dispute Appellants’ contention that Inukai’s silicon carbide matrix is microwave-absorbent, and, thus, not substantially transparent to microwave energy. See Ans. 2—6. Moreover, in rejecting claim 1, the Examiner does not propose any modification of Inukai’s matrix to render it substantially microwave energy-absorbent. Final Act. 2—3. In fact, as Appellants point out (Appeal Br. 4, 5), the Examiner’s discussion of the deficiencies of Inukai in regard to claim 1 suggests that the Examiner misconstrues claim 1 as requiring that the whiskers and/or fibers be substantially transparent to electromagnetic radiation. See Final Act. 2 (finding that Inukai does not explicitly specify that the silicon carbide whiskers be substantially transparent to electromagnetic radiation). The Examiner’s proposed modification of Inukai in view of Nixdorf to use single crystal silicon carbide whiskers for forming Inukai’s composite structure “in order to strengthen the composite material for higher cracking resistance]” (Final Act. 3) would not overcome the above-noted deficiency in Inukai vis- a-vis the limitation in claim 1 that the matrix be substantially transparent to electromagnetic radiation. 3 Appeal 2014-009326 Application 11/846,960 Moreover, although conceding that Inukai also fails to explicitly specify that “the composite material has a dielectric loss tangent which is at least 100 times greater than that of the matrix material,” as also required in claim 1, the Examiner does not articulate either a reason why the proposed modification to use single crystal silicon carbide whiskers in Inukai’s composite in view of Nixdorf would necessarily yield a composite having such a dielectric loss tangent or a reason why it otherwise would have been obvious to form Inukai’s composite to have such a dielectric loss tangent. See Final Act. 2—3; Appeal Br. 7 (asserting that “none of Inukai, Nixdorf, or He recognizes in any way that SiC whiskers or fibrils are effective for increasing dielectric loss tangent”). The Examiner relies on He only for its definition of dielectric loss tangent, and not for any teaching that might shed any light on what the dielectric loss tangent of Inukai’s modified composite structure would be, or should be. Final Act. 2—3; Ans. 4—5. For the above reasons, the Examiner fails to establish that the subject matter of claim 1, or its dependent claims 2, 3, and 12, would have been obvious. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1—3 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Inukai, Nixdorf, and He. Rejection II The rejection of claim 4, which depends from claim 1, and of claim 5, which depends from claim 4, inherits the aforementioned shortcomings of the rejection of claim 1. See Final Act. 3^4. The Examiner’s application of Milewski’s teachings directed to using nitrogen as a dopant to increase the electrical conductivity of silicon carbide whiskers does not make up for the deficiencies in the Examiner’s combination of Inukai, Nixdorf, and He discussed above in regard to claim 1. See id. Accordingly, we do not 4 Appeal 2014-009326 Application 11/846,960 sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Inukai, Nixdorf, He, and Milewski. Rejection III In rejecting claims 33—37, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to use a matrix material comprising a polymer as taught by Oku in the composite structure of Inukai, as modified in view of Nixdorf, in order to withstand a high temperature environment, and, further, to have the matrix material comprise a fluorocarbon polymer for suitability for a user- specific application. Final Act. 4. However, the Examiner does not articulate any findings or technical reasoning to explain how, if at all, such a modification would remedy the aforementioned shortcoming of the combination of Inukai, Nixdorf, and He with respect to the dielectric loss tangent limitation of claim 1, from which claims 33—37 depend. Id. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 33—37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Inukai, Nixdorf, He, and Oku. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—5, 12, and 33—37 is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation