Ex Parte Wochner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2014

12664418 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2014)

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.
12/664,418 12/14/2009 Hanns Wochner WAS1045PUSA 2168
22045 7590 02/26/2014
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
1000 TOWN CENTER
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075
EXAMINER
WEEKS, GLORIA R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3721
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2014 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 HANNS WOCHNER, BRUNO LICHTENEGGER,
and REINER PECH
____________

Appeal 2012-011213
Application 12/664,418
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-011213
Application 12/664,418

2

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision1 finally rejecting claims 12 and 14-28.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Claims 12 and 22 are representative of the invention, and are
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:

12. A method for packaging polycrystalline silicon,
comprising filling polycrystalline silicon by a filling device into
a freely suspended, completely formed bag, and closing the bag
thus filled, wherein the bag consists of high-purity plastic with
a wall thickness of from l0 to 1000 µm, wherein the filling
device comprises a freely suspended energy absorber of a
nonmetallic low-contamination material, which is introduced
into the plastic bag before filling with the polycrystalline silicon
and wherein at least portions of the polycrystalline silicon
contact the suspended energy absorber as the polycrystalline
silicon is filled into the plastic bag, and the freely suspended
energy absorber is then removed from the plastic bag filled with
polycrystalline silicon, and the plastic bag is closed.

22. A device for packaging crushed polycrystalline
silicon material or polysilicon granules, comprising a source of
polycrystalline silicon fragments, a filling and closing machine
with a filling station and a closing station, in which a PE bag is
suspended on a gripper system and moved from station to
station in a cyclical sequence, wherein the filling station
comprises a freely suspended energy absorber of a nonmetallic
low-contamination material, which is introduced into the PE
bag before the filling of the PE bag with polycrystalline silicon
and is removed from the PE bag after the filling of the PE bag
with polycrystalline silicon, and the filled PE bag is transported

1 Final Office Action mailed Oct. 21, 2011 (“Fin. Rej.”).
2 Appeal Brief filed Mar. 13, 2012 (“App. Br.”).
Appeal 2012-011213
Application 12/664,418

3
further by means of the gripper system into the closing station
and is closed there.

The appealed claims stand rejected as follows (see Fin. Rej. 2-6; App.
Br. 3):
1. claims 12, 14, 16, 17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) over Hölzlwimmer (US 7,013,620 B2, iss. Mar. 21, 2006) [;
2. claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over
Mustain (US 5,687,551, iss. Nov. 18, 1997);
3. claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Hölzlwimmer in view of Mustain;
4. claims 18 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Hölzlwimmer in view of Ylvisaker (US 4,964,259, iss. Oct. 23, 1990);
5. claims 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Mustain in view of Hölzlwimmer; and
6. claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Hölzlwimmer in view of Svendsen (US 5,443,102, iss. Aug. 22, 1995).
We decide the following issues in favor of Appellants and, therefore,
reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 12 and 14-28: Did the
Examiner reversibly err in finding the claim limitation “a freely suspended
energy absorber” as recited in claim 12 and claim 22 reads on
Hölzlwimmer’s deflection plates 5 (see Fin. Rej. 2) and Mustain’s
expandable cone 41(id. at 3)? (App. Br. 10, 12.)
The Examiner finds Hölzlwimmer plates 5 act as an “energy
absorber” as claimed because they “prevent ‘undesired recomminution’ or
shattering of the silicon” and “the angling of the plates 5 absorbs more
Appeal 2012-011213
Application 12/664,418

4
energy than a free-fall dropping of the silicon into the bag 8.” (Ans.3 5
(citing Hölzlwimmer col. 3, ll. 28-30).) The Examiner finds plates 5 are
“freely suspended” as claimed because they are shown suspended over bag 8
in Hölzlwimmer Figure 1. (Id.) The Examiner finds Mustain’s cone 41 is
“freely suspended” because it hangs by attachment to a support plate 44.
(Id. at 6 (relying on a dictionary definition of “suspend”).)
During examination, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
construction consistent with the Specification. In re ICON Health &
Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
The description of the “freely suspended energy absorber” in the
Specification includes the following:
The freely suspended energy absorber preferably has the form
of a freely suspended movable flexible tube. . . . The movable
flexible tube is introduced into the bag and the crushed
polysilicon material is introduced into the bag by way of the
filling unit and the flexible tube.
(Spec. 7:29-37.)
The freely suspended energy absorber absorbs a large part of
the kinetic energy of the crushed polysilicon material falling
into the bag. It protects the walls of the plastic bag from
contact with the sharp-edged polycrystalline silicon and
prevents perforation of the plastic bag. The fact that the energy
absorber is suspended in a freely movable manner in the plastic
bag means that there is no abrasion during filling, since the
kinetic energy of the polycrystalline silicon falling into the bag
is converted into kinetic energy of the energy absorber, without
abrasive matter thereby being produced.
(Id. at 8:6-17.)

3 Answer mailed May 31, 2012.
Appeal 2012-011213
Application 12/664,418

5
We interpret the argued claim limitation in light of the Specification
as requiring a device which is suspended in a freely movable manner so as to
absorb a large part of the kinetic energy of polycrystalline material
introduced therethrough.
Hölzlwimmer transfers polysilicon fragments 2 from a hopper 4 to a
plastic bag 8 positioned below the hopper 4 via deflection plates 5
(Hölzlwimmer, Fig. 1), which are said to minimize the drop height of the
fragments 2 “so that undesired recomminution of the silicon does not take
place” (id. at col. 3, ll. 28-30). We agree with Appellants that
Hölzlwimmer’s deflection plates 5 “minimize[e] the energy which can be
gravitationally created during free fall” (App. Br. 10), however, the
Examiner has failed to identify any description in Hölzlwimmer which
supports a finding that the deflection plates 5 are suspended in a freely
movable manner so as to absorb a large part of the kinetic energy of
polycrystalline material introduced therethrough (id.; Reply Br.4 1-2).
Mustain describes an expandable cone 41 “secured to [a] cone support
plate 44.” (Mustain col. 8, ll. 33-35.) We agree with Appellants that there is
no indication in Mustain that cone 41 is suspended in a freely movable
manner so as to absorb a large part of the kinetic energy of polycrystalline
material introduced therethrough. (See App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 2.) Further,
the Examiner, in rejecting claim 22, fails to identify any facts to support a
finding that cone 41 meets the limitation of an energy absorber. (See Fin.
Rej. 3; Ans. 6.)
In sum, Appellants have persuasively argued that the Examiner
reversibly erred in finding the claim limitation “freely suspended energy

4 Reply Brief filed Jul. 26, 2012.
Appeal 2012-011213
Application 12/664,418

6
absorber” (claims 12 and 22) reads on Hölzlwimmer’s deflection plates 5
and Mustain’s expandable cone 41. Because the Examiner’s anticipation
and obviousness rejections as to the dependent claims are likewise based on
this erroneous finding of fact, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 12
and 14-28 is:
REVERSED

hh