Ex Parte SAKA et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 24, 2016

12717690 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121717,690 03/04/2010
23373 7590 02/26/2016
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
YuichiSAKA
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.
Qll7800 3304
EXAMINER
GOFF II, JOHN L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2016 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):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
sughrue@sughrue.com
USPTO@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUICHI SAKA, MITSUO MAEDA, and Y ASUO MA TSUMI1
Appeal2014-002473
Application 12/717,690
Technology Center 1700
Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judges.
DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's maintained final rejection of pending claims 1-8. 2 We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Sumitomo Chemical Company, Limited as the Real
Party in Interest. Appeal Brief ("Br."), 2.
2 Rejections of claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claim 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, were withdrawn in the Advisory Action
mailed September 25, 2012. Answer ("Ans."), 7. Claim 9 was cancelled in
the amendment after final filed October 10, 2012. Ans. 7.
Appeal2014-002473
Application 12/717,690
BACKGROUND
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a method of fusion
bonding a molded article of liquid crystalline polymer to a glass substrate.
Spec. Abstract.
Claim 1-the sole independent claim-is illustrative:
1. A method for fusion bonding a molded article of a liquid
crystalline polymer and a glass substrate to each other,
compnsmg:
bringing the molded article into contact with the glass
substrate; and
setting the temperature of a contact portion of the molded
article in contact with the glass substrate, at a predetermined
temperature,
wherein when the predetermined temperature of the
contact portion is represented by T 1 (°C), a flow initiation
temperature of the liquid crystalline polymer is represented by
T 2(°C) and a decomposition initiation temperature of the liquid
crystalline polymer is represented by T 3(°C), the following
relation is satisfied:
T 3(°C) > Ti (°C) 2 T 2(°C) + 80°C
Br. 19 (Claims Appendix).
The Specification defines the flow initiation temperature (T 2) as the
temperature at which liquid crystalline polymer forming a melt exhibits a
melt viscosity of 48,000 poise when heated at a temperature increase rate of
4 °C per minute and extruded from a nozzle having an inner diameter of
l mm and a length of 10 mm under a load of 100 kgf/cm2 in a flow tester
CFT-500 manufactured by Shimadzu Corp. Spec. 16, 11. 16-24.
The Specification defines the decomposition initiation temperature
(T 3) as the temperature at which the weight of a sample of liquid crystalline
polymer is reduced by 1 % upon heating at a temperature increase rate of
2
Appeal2014-002473
Application 12/717,690
10°C per minute in a nitrogen atmosphere in a thermogravimetric analyzer
TGA-50 manufactured by Shimadzu Corp. Spec. 16, 1. 25 to 17, 1. 4.
The method, accordingly, comprises contacting a molded liquid
crystalline polymer article to a glass substrate where the temperature of the
portion of liquid crystalline polymer contacting the glass substrate is a
temperature at least 80°C greater than the flow initiation temperature (T 2)
and less than the decomposition initiation temperature (T 3 ).
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness
as follows:
I. claim 1 over Zimmerman et al. (US 2008/0150064 A 1,
published June 26, 2008) ("Zimmerman") optionally in view of Johnston
(US 3,964,958, issued June 22, 1976);
II. claims 2-5 over Zimmerman in view of Johnston;
III. claim 6 over Zimmerman in view of Cunningham et al.
(US 2002/0181838 Al, published December 5, 2002) ("Cunningham") and
optionally Johnston; and
IV. claims 7 and 8 over Zimmerman in view of Eichelberger
(US 2008/0316714 Al, published December 25, 2008) and Fukawa et al.
(US 4,910,074, issued March 20, 1990) ("Fukawa") and optionally Johnston.
DISCUSSION
Appellants rely on arguments as to the patentability of claim 1 for the
patentability of all claims, thus, arguing the claims as a group. Br. 10-17.
All claims will stand or fall together with independent claim 1, which we
select as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
3
Appeal2014-002473
Application 12/717,690
Upon consideration of the evidence, Appellants' arguments, and the
Examiner's findings and reasoning,3 we find Appellants' arguments and
evidence fail to identify reversible error in the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of any of the claims. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
2011) ("[E]ven assuming that the examiner had failed to make a prima facie
case, the Board would not have erred in framing the issue as one of
'reversible error."'). In particular, we are unpersuaded of reversible error in
the Examiner's obviousness rejections based on combinations of the applied
prior art including Johnston, which we, accordingly, affirm. We decline to
reach the cumulative rejections over combinations that do not include
Johnston. We add the following.
The Examiner finds Zimmerman discloses a method for thermal
bonding a molded article of liquid crystalline polymer and a glass substrate
comprising bringing the molded article and glass substrate into contact and
setting the temperature of the contacting portion of the molded article to a
temperature to locally melt the contacting portion and thermally bond the
liquid crystalline polymer and glass. Ans. 2 (citing Zimmerman Fig. 4;
,-i,-i 33, 36; claim 26). The Examiner considers the disclosed method of
thermal bonding to be fusion bonding. Ans. 2.
As to the recited predetermined temperature T 1 used in the disclosed
fusion bonding, the Examiner finds it reflects the temperature at which the
liquid crystal polymer is sufficiently melted to form the disclosed bond.
Ans. 2. More particularly, the Examiner finds the relationship of T 1 as equal
3 We refer to the Final Office Action (mailed July 10, 2012), the Appeal
Brief (filed August 9, 2013), and the Examiner's Answer (mailed October
25, 2013).
4
Appeal2014-002473
Application 12/717,690
to or exceeding the flow initiation temperature T 2 + 80°C is nothing more
than the temperature at which fusion bonding is achieved. Ans. 3. As to the
decomposition initiation temperature T 3 bounding the upper limit of allowed
temperatures for predetermined temperature T 1, the Examiner finds
Zimmerman's disclosure of heating for melting to form a hermetically
sealed interface between the liquid crystalline polymer and glass substrate
without mention of further heating to the point of chemical decomposition
conveys that the temperature does not exceed the decomposition initiation
temperature T3. Ans. 3--4 (citing Zimmerman iii! 3, 6, 33, 70-72).
The Examiner correctly emphasizes the Patent Office is not equipped
to measure the flow initiation temperature T 2 and the decomposition
initiation temperature T3 of the prior art's liquid crystalline polymer. Ans. 3.
The Examiner finds Johnston discloses that "it is well understood in
the fusion bonding art that the bonding temperature is dependent upon the
materials being bonded and easily determined by one of ordinary skill in the
art." Ans. 4 (citing Johnston col. 5, 11. 6-9).
Finding de facto that the effective bonding temperature is bounded by
the flow initiation temperature T 2 + 80°C and the decomposition initiation
temperature T 3, the Examiner concludes one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention, armed with the knowledge of Zimmerman and
Johnston, would have been led to the claimed method as a matter of routine
experimentation to obtain a sealed interface between the liquid crystalline
polymer and glass substrate. Ans. 4-5.
Appellants argue that Zimmerman fails to teach or suggest the
claimed temperature conditions, i.e., "the relationship between the
decomposition temperature [T3], the flow initiation temperature [T2] and the
5
Appeal2014-002473
Application 12/717,690
predetermined temperature [T 1] of the liquid crystalline polymer." Br. 11-
12. Appellants highlight that Zimmerman is silent as to both the flow
initiation temperature T 2 and decomposition initiation temperature T 3 (Br.
12) and argue that "the Examiner erroneously assumes that the melt
temperature of Zimmerman is 'necessarily higher' than the flow initiation
temperature" (id.). Appellants further argue that the Examiner erred in
concluding that Zimmerman's "hermetic seal" is provided by temperature
conditions meeting the claims-contending Zimmerman's technique
"utilizes an interfacial or intermediate layer" in providing the seal. Br. 13-
14 (citing Zimmerman ,-i 9).
Appellants argue Johnston fails to teach or suggest the claimed liquid
crystalline polymer and temperature condition for bonding with glass
because the thermoplastic materials that Johnston joins using heat bonding
are polyimide films and Teflon. Br. 14 (citing Johnston col. 9, 11. 18-20).
Appellants also argue the Examiner errs in determining that
Zimmerman's fusing of the liquid crystalline polymer must meet the
relationship between T 1 and T 2 + 80°C because it is required for fusing
(Final Act. 3, citing example 1 and comparative example 1) since the liquid
crystalline polymer of comparative example 1 was fused (Br. 14-15), but did
not achieve fusion bonding resulting in air-tightness (id. at 15-16, citing
Spec. 27 Table 1 ). Appellants contend the liquid crystalline polymer "was
fused even when T 1 is not equal or greater than T 2, but that fusion bonding
... was not achieved." Br. 16.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of reversible error. As to
the arguments grounded on Zimmerman's silence as to the values for T 2 and
T 3 and the claimed relationships between them and the temperature at which
6
Appeal2014-002473
Application 12/717,690
Zimmerman conducts its fusion bonding, we find them without merit where
the Examiner has, on this record, established a reasonable basis for these
values being met-in the absence of testing-and, furthermore, determines
that optimizing conditions for fusion bonding between a liquid crystalline
polymer and a glass substrate to achieve a suitable interface would have led
the skilled artisan to use a temperature to fusion bond within the range set
forth in claim 1. Ans. 8-9. "[I]t is proper to take into account not only the
specific teachings of the references but also the inferences that one skilled in
the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401
F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968). It is also well-settled that "where the general
conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to
discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re
Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955).
As to Appellants' related argument that Zimmerman's technique relies
on "an interfacial or intermediate layer" (Br. 13-14, citing Zimmerman ,-i 9),
we find it unpersuasive on this record where the Examiner determines the
cited "layer" relates not to the adhesion of the molded liquid crystalline
polymer article to the glass substrate, but rather to adhesion of the molded
article of liquid crystalline polymer to a metal leadframe (Ans. 9), and this
determination stands unrebutted in the absence of a Reply Brief.
Appellants' arguments as to Johnston are unpersuasive of error
because the arguments wholly fail to demonstrate that Johnston's teaching as
to optimizing conditions for fusion bonding thermoplastics would not, in
combination with Zimmerman's disclosure of thermoplastic liquid
crystalline polymer, have led one of ordinary skill, through routine
experimentation, to the claimed method. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
7
Appeal2014-002473
Application 12/717,690
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references."); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)
(The test for obviousness "is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."). Consequently,
the arguments fail to address the basis of the rejection grounded on it not
being inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine
experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d at 456.
As to example 1 and comparative example 1, Appellants' arguments
are unpersuasive because they are grounded on the liquid crystalline
polymer in comparative example 1 being fused, yet not fusion bonded (Br.
14-16), but, as the Examiner determines, there is no evidence on this record
that the liquid crystalline polymer in comparative example 1 is actually
fused (Ans. 10-11; Spec. iii! 68, 72, Table 1 ). "Attorney's argument ...
cannot take the place of evidence." In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405
(CCPA 1974).
Furthermore, it has been established that "the [obviousness] analysis
need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of
the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see also In re Fritch, 972
F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (a reference stands for all of the
specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in
the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom).
For these reasons, it cannot be said that the Appellants have shown
reversible error in the Examiner's determination that one of ordinary skill in
8
Appeal2014-002473
Application 12/717,690
the art, armed with the knowledge of the cited prior art including Johnston,
would have been led to the subject matter recited in the appealed claims.
See, e.g., In re Jung, 637 F.3d at 1356.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 ).
AFFIRMED
9