Ex Parte Samuels et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 30, 200910227997 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 30, 2009) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte MICHAEL R. SAMUELS, SUBHOTOSH KHAN, and MIKHAIL R. LEVIT ____________ Appeal 2008-4374 Application 10/227,997 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Decided:1 March 30, 2009 ____________ Before CHUNG K. PAK, TERRY J. OWENS, and CATHERINE Q. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the Decided Date shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery). Appeal 2008-4374 Application 10/227,997 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 16-26 and 33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The invention relates to solid sheet material useful as substrates for circuit boards (Spec. 1:11-16). Claim 16 is illustrative: 16. A sheet, comprising: (a) a nonwoven fabric of short high tensile modulus fibers; and (b) a thermotropic liquid crystalline polymer having a low moisture absorption; wherein the sheet has an apparent density and a calculated density and the thermotropic liquid crystalline polymer files [sic, fills] an effective amount of voids between said high tensile modulus fibers so that said sheet has an apparent density that is at least about 75% of the calculated density.2 Appellants request review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16-26 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Furuta (US 6,124,004, issued Sep. 26, 2000 to Furuta et al.). Appellants argue no claim apart from the others. We select claim 16 as representative for deciding the issues on appeal. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (“When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a group by appellant, the Board may select a single 2 Until the Amendment of February 6, 2006 claim 16 used the word “fills” instead of “files.” This portion of the claim is not at issue, and the discrepancy, therefore, does not affect our decision. 2 Appeal 2008-4374 Application 10/227,997 claim from the group of claims that are argued together to decide the appeal with respect to the group of claims as to the ground of rejection on the basis of the selected claim alone.”). II. DISPOSTIVE ISSUE The issue on appeal arising from the contentions of Appellants and the Examiner is: Have Appellants established that the Examiner reversibly erred in concluding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to either: (1) select a nonwoven fabric of short aramid fibers for use of Furuta’s nonwoven; or (2) use levels of heat and pressure during Furuta’s laminating process such that Furuta’s laminate would have an apparent density that is at least about 75% of the calculated density? III. PRINCIPLES OF LAW “[A] prior art reference must be ‘considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.’” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (quoting In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)). In an obviousness analysis, the proper focus is on evidence of what was known before the time of invention, and the analysis must not unduly constrain the breath of knowledge available to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Translogic Tech., 504 F.3d 1249, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An improvement in the art is obvious if “it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742 (2007). The knowledge generally available to a person having ordinary skill in the art includes facts admittedly well known in the art. See In re Nomiya, 3 Appeal 2008-4374 Application 10/227,997 509 F.2d 566, 570-71 (CCPA 1975)(The admittedly known prior art in the Appellants’ Specification may be used in determining the patentability of a claimed invention.). IV. FINDINGS OF FACT Furuta describes laminated sheets including combinations of layers of thermotropic liquid crystalline polyester (LCP), layers of fiber material, and layers of metallic foil (Furuta, col. 1, ll. 12-17; col. 15, ll. 5-9). The laminates have excellent heat resistance, and low relative dielectric constant, dielectric loss tangent and water absorption, and can be used for, among other things, printed circuit board substrates (Furuta, col. 1, ll. 17-21). The purpose of the fiber material is to reinforce the strength of the film or laminate (Furuta, col. 12, ll. 50-51). The fiber material is “preferably used in the form of fiber, non-woven fabric and the like in view of handling, and more preferably used in the form of fiber.” (Furuta, col. 13, ll. 3-5.) The fiber material may be used in an untreated state or may be impregnated with a thermosetting resin and used as a prepreg (Furuta, col. 13, ll. 7-27). Furuta discloses several methods for producing the LCP/fiber material laminate (Furuta, col. 13, l. 35 to col. 14, l. 13). In one process, Furuta discloses heating and pressing a preformed sheet of LCP to a layer of fiber material (either untreated or in prepreg form)(col. 13, ll. 28-34). According to Furuta, “[t]he condition for heating and pressuring the film or sheet made of the liquid crystal polyester resin composition and the layer made of the fiber material is not particularly restricted, and can be suitably selected according [to] the properties of the film or sheet and the fiber material.” (Furuta, col. 13, ll. 35-39). 4 Appeal 2008-4374 Application 10/227,997 In a second process, LCP is melt-extruded onto the fiber material layer and press-bonded to the fiber material using a roll (Furuta, col. 13, ll. 39-43). In this process, Furuta prefers to use a textile or non-woven fabric fiber material because such textiles and non-wovens can be continuously supplied from a roll and make for easier handling and processing (Furuta, col. 13, ll. 48-58). Furuta discloses particular preferred thicknesses for the LCP and fiber material layers (Furuta, col. 13, ll. 58-65). Furuta also discloses examples for some embodiments (Furuta, col. 15, ll. 14-17), and indicates in those examples that voids within the laminate are undesired (Example 7, col. 22, ll. 28-31 and Comparative Example 8, col. 22, ll. 65-67). Furuta does not provide any guidance on the selection of the length of fibers within the fiber material (Furuta, it its entirety). According to Appellants’ Specification, “[d]escription of the formation of nonwoven aramid sheets, especially papers, is found in U.S. Patent Nos. 5,223,094 and 5,314,742, each of which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.” (Spec. 14:19-22.) Those Patents disclose making nonwoven papers containing short aramid fibers (‘094, col. 1, ll. 7- 9) and resin impregnated laminates including aramid papers (‘742, col. 1, ll. 57-65) for use in printed wiring board (printed circuit board) applications. V. ANALYSIS As a first matter, we cannot agree with Appellants that Furuta’s silence in regard to fiber length in the nonwoven sheet forecloses a conclusion of obviousness (Br. 11). As stated by Appellants, “[a]s is well known in the art, nonwoven fabrics may be made of short fibers or long 5 Appeal 2008-4374 Application 10/227,997 (essentially continuous) fibers or a combination of the two.” (Br. 11.) Given Furuta’s silence on the length of the fibers, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected short or long aramid fibers to form a known aramid nonwoven; such selection being made based on the predictable properties of the known materials. Appellants own Specification indicates that short aramid fiber papers (a type of aramid nonwoven) were known in the art for use in laminates and in printed circuit board applications. Considering Furuta in light of the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, we agree with the Examiner that the evidence supports the prima facie obviousness of including the known nonwoven fabrics of short aramid fibers for use in the laminate of Furuta. Nor can we agree with Appellants that Furuta’s lack of discussion of the apparent density forecloses a conclusion of obviousness (Br. 10-11). Furuta teaches laminating by heat and pressure, or by pressing an extruded LCP layer and nonwoven layer together, so that the fibers within the nonwoven reinforce the LCP layer. This heating and pressing process necessarily fills the voids to some extent within the nonwoven with the softened LCP. Moreover, the heating and pressing parameters as well as the thicknesses of the layers are selected to obtain the properties desired in the end product printed circuit board. Example 7 and Comparative Example 8 provide evidence that voids within the laminate are to be avoided. This provides evidence that those of ordinary skill in the art would have obtained the apparent density through routine optimization of the laminating process which would have been operated so as to remove voids sufficiently that the apparent density is at least about 75% of the calculated density. 6 Appeal 2008-4374 Application 10/227,997 Appellants have not established that the Examiner reversibly erred in concluding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to: (1) select a nonwoven fabric of short aramid fibers for use of Furuta’s nonwoven; and (2) use levels of heat and pressure during Furuta’s laminating process such that Furuta’s laminate would have an apparent density that is at least about 75% of the calculated density. VI. CONCLUSION Appellants have limited the scope of their arguments to the above issues and do not further contest the Examiner’s rejection of the claims. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16-26, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Furuta. VII. DECISION The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. VIII. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v). AFFIRMED cam 7 Appeal 2008-4374 Application 10/227,997 EI DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY LEGAL PATENT RECORDS CENTER BARLEY MILL PLAZA 25/1122B 4417 LANCASTER PIKE WILMINGTON DE 19805 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation