Ex Parte Sidhu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2016

13126914 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/126,914 04/29/2011
21839 7590 09/23/2016
BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
POST OFFICE BOX 1404
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jagit Sidhu
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.
1033963-000165 7083
EXAMINER
WITTENBERG, STEFANIE S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1756
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2016 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):
ADIPDOC 1@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE
THE PA TENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAGIT SIDHU1
Appeal2015-002015
Application 13/126,914
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, MARK NAGUMO, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Jagit Sidhu ("Sidhu") timely appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Final Rejection2 of claims 1, 2, 5, 8, and 9. 3 We have jurisdiction.
35 U.S.C. § 6. We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as BAE Systems PLC. (Appeal
Brief, filed 17 July 2014 ("Br."), 1.)
2 Office action mailed 17 January 2014 ("Final Rejection"; cited as "FR").
3 Remaining copending claims 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 20-23 have been
withdrawn from consideration (FR 1, § 5a), and are not before us.
Appeal2015-002015
Application 13/126,914
A. Introduction4
OPINION
The subject matter on appeal relates to "additive manufacturing
processes," which the '914 Specification defines as "a generic term used to
describe a process by which successive layers of a structure, device or
mechanism are formed, and in which in each layer components such as
electrical circuit components may be formed by a Direct Write method."
(Spec. 1, 11. 21-24.) "The term Direct Write is commonly used to describe a
range of technologies which allows the fabrication of two or three-
dimensional functional structures using processes that are compatible with
being carried out directly onto potentially large complex shapes."
(Id. at 11. 8-11.) The writing or printing materials, regardless of whether
they are powders, suspensions, vapors, or other materials, are referred to as
"inks." (Id. at 11. 27-31.) Once applied to a nascent three-dimensional
object, which is referred to as a "substrate," (id. at 2, 11. 4-7), the material is
fixed. (Id. at 1, 1. 32, to 2, 1. 2.) The commonly available printed materials
are said to have limited conductivity (id. at 2, 11. 24-27), and methods of
improving their conductivity, such as electroplating, are said to have limited
compatibility with direct writing methods because a bath of the metal
solution is needed. (Id. at 3, 1. 26, through 4, 1. 11.)
4 Application 13/126,914, Additive manufacturing processes,
filed 29 April 2011 as the national stage under 35 U.S.C. § 371 of
PCT /GB2009/05 l 446, filed 28 October 2009. We refer to the
'"914 Specification," which we cite as "Spec."
2
Appeal2015-002015
Application 13/126,914
The claimed method involves providing a partially conductive pattern
on a substrate surface, followed by plating the conductor using a bathless
process.
Claim 1 is representative and reads:
A method of forming a component of a conductive structure
on a substrate using an apparatus including
a surface treatment tool and
an electroplating tool,
compnsmg:
moving the surface treatment tool across a surface of the
substrate for applying a surface treatment to the substrate
to form a patterned area having at least some electrical
conductivity; and
moving the electroplating tool across the surface of the
substrate for electroplating the patterned area,
the electroplating tool having an electrode and an
electrolyte source for in situ supply of electrolyte,
by providing an anode current to the electrode,
the electroplating tool causing the patterned area in at
least a vicinity of the tool to function as a cathode,
and passing electrolyte between said patterned area
and said electrode, thereby to deposit conductive
material onto said patterned area,
wherein the steps of moving the surface treatment tool and
the electroplating tool are performed consecutively and in
a continuous progressive process across the surface of the
substrate.
(Br., Claims App. 1 [pages un-numbered]; some indentation, paragraphing,
and emphasis added.)
3
Appeal2015-002015
Application 13/126,914
The Examiner maintains the following ground of rejection: 5
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8 and 9 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of
Lowe, 6 Cleemput, 7 and Basol. 8
B. Discussion
Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record.
Sidhu urges that the Examiner erred harmfully because "Lowe teaches
an electroplating station that focuses an electron beam onto the plane of a
web 27[9J, which moves at constant speed past the station." (Br. 4, 11. 9-10.)
Cleemput, as illustrated in the portion of Cleemput Fig. 1 reproduced
on the following page, teaches a screen printing process in which
"[a] squeegee 3 is moved across the surface of the screen 2 to push the paste
through the screen 2 and onto the surface of the substrate 23." (Id. at 11. 13-
14).
5 Examiner's Answer mailed 2 October 2014 ("Ans.").
6 John Michael Lowe, Method of providing conductive tracks on a printed
circuit and apparatus for use in carrying out the method, U.S. Patent
Application Publication 2003/0173225 Al (2003).
7 Camiel D. Cleemput, Screen printing process and apparatus and
electrical printed circuits obtained therewith, U.S. Patent No. 4,959,246
(1990).
8 Bulent M. Basol, Composition control for roll-to-roll process photovoltaic
films, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007 /0227633 Al (2007).
9 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, labels to elements are presented in
bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
4
Appeal2015-002015
Application 13/126,914
{A portion of Cleemput Fig. 1 is reproduced below}
Thus, in Sidhu's view, the teachings of Lowe regarding a stationary beam
focused onto the surface of a moving substrate, of Cleemput regarding a
screen printing process in which a squeegee is moved above the surface of a
stationary substrate, and of Basol, in which a substrate is moved between
various stations for various processes, would not have resulted in the
claimed invention. (Id. at 6, 11. 9-30.)
This argument is not persuasive of harmful error. First, Sidhu appears
to have overlooked the Examiner's citation (FR 4) of Lowe, Figure 7,
reproduced below,
L.--....... A . r:j 114 r I-·
I
110
{Lowe Fig. 7 shows substantially dry electrode plating of conductive
traces 114 on printed circuit board 112 along line 116, moving in the
direction of arrow A }
5
Appeal2015-002015
Application 13/126,914
and the associated description at Lowe, page 4, paragraphs [0077]-[0082].
Lowe describes an embodiment in which tool 116 is moved in contact with
the surface of substrate 112, with electrodes 120 connected to the negative
pole of an electroplating circuit to deposit a layer of conductive metal along
tracks 114 (Lowe 4 [0082]). 10
Thus, both Lowe and Cleemput describe methods in which a tool is
moved across the substrate, as required by claim 1. Notably, Sidhu does not
dispute the Examiner's finding that the squeegee of Cleemput corresponds to
the surface treatment tool recited in claim 1.
As for Sidhu's criticism of the Examiner's reliance on Basol, we are
not persuaded that the artisan would have declined to combine the teachings
of Lowe with those of Cleemput merely because Basol transports the
substrate to different stations, rather than moving the stations past positions
on the substrate needing treatment. The Examiner provided a specific
analysis of the meaning of the terms "consecutive," and "continuous
progressive process" as they are recited in the final phrase of claim 1. (FR 5,
last para.) Sidhu has not addressed or criticized the Examiner's
interpretation in any substantive manner, and thus has not shown harmful
error in this aspect of the rejection. Put another way, Lowe does not
describe expressly how traces 114 are to be deposited on printed circuit
board 112 before they are dry electroplated. Cleemput describes a way of
depositing such traces. On the present record, Sidhu has not shown harmful
error in the Examiner's conclusion that it would have been obvious to apply
10 Sidhu belatedly recognizes this error in the Reply (Reply Brief
filed 2 December 2014). However, Sidhu does not address the Examiner's
findings regarding Lowe, Figure 7, reproduced at Ans. 3, 11. 1-16.
6
Appeal2015-002015
Application 13/126,914
such traces by moving a surface treatment tool such as a squeegee across the
substrate.
C. Order
It is ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 8, and 9 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a).
AFFIRMED
7