Hak Sik JOODownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 8, 20212020001185 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 8, 2021) 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. 15/317,154 12/08/2016 Hak Sik JOO LPP20164076US 1589 66390 7590 01/08/2021 LEX IP MEISTER, PLLC 5180 PARKSTONE DRIVE, SUITE 175 CHANTILLY, VA 20151 EXAMINER STEELE, JENNIFER A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1796 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/08/2021 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 HAK SIK JOO1 Appeal 2020-001185 Application 15/317,154 Technology Center 1700 Before ERIC B. GRIMES, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to fused sheet for electromagnetic wave shielding, which have been rejected as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. STATEMENT OF THE CASE “The present invention relates to a fused sheet for being applied to electronic equipment such as a mobile phone, an OLED TV and a LED to 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the inventor, Hak Sik Joo. Appeal Br. 3. We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appeal 2020-001185 Application 15/317,154 2 allow stable electromagnetic wave absorption/extinction and shielding.” Spec. 1:8–10. Claims 1–7 and 14–20 are on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative (emphasis added to disputed limitation): 1. A fused sheet for electromagnetic wave absorption/ extinction and shielding, comprising: a premolded graphite sheet prepared by molding a graphite substrate including graphite into a sheet form, wherein the premolded graphite sheet has a density in a range of 0.1–1.5 g/cm3; and a porous metal sheet having a plurality of pores including fine holes or gaps and having a size of 0.01 mm – 0.5 mm connected to upper and lower surfaces of the porous metal sheet, wherein the premolded graphite sheet is stacked on one surface of the porous metal sheet, and press molded such that a portion of crystal particles of the graphite substrate is impregnated into the plurality of pores to be physically attached and combined to the plurality of pores, so as to have a density of 2.0 g/cm3 – 6.0 g/cm3. Claim 14, the other independent claim, is directed to a “fused sheet for electronic equipment high heat dissipation” having the same characteristics as the fused sheet of claim 1, except that the plurality of pores have a size in the range of 0.001 mm to 0.05 mm. The claims stand rejected as follows: Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious based on Shives,2 Tsukamoto,3 and Suzuki4 (Final Action5 4); 2 US 2006/0225874 A1 (Oct. 12, 2006). 3 JP 2005229100 (Aug. 25, 2005). 4 JP H07-97602 A (Apr. 11, 1995). 5 Office Action mailed March 12, 2019. Appeal 2020-001185 Application 15/317,154 3 Claims 5 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious based on Shives, Tsukamoto, Suzuki, and Plank6 (Final Action 9); Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 14, 15, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious based on Tsukamoto, Engineering Toolbox,7 and Suzuki (Final Action 11); and Claims 3 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious based on Tsukamoto, Engineering Toolbox, Suzuki, and Haerle8 (Final Action 14). OPINION Obviousness based on Shives, Tsukamoto, and Suzuki Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected as obvious based on Shives, Tsukamoto, and Suzuki, and claims 5 and 18 stand rejected as obvious based on Shives, Tsukamoto, Suzuki, and Plank. The same issue is dispositive for both rejections. The Examiner finds that Shives discloses “a sandwiched thermal article for heat dissipation, which includes at least one flexible graphite sheet sandwiched about a non-graphite core,” which is “preferably a tanged metal or metal mesh,” and preferably made of “aluminum for its light weight.” Final Action 4. The Examiner finds that Shives teaches that its graphite sheet “has a typical density of about 0.1 to 1.5 g/cm[3].” Id. The Examiner also finds that “[t]he spaces between the metal mesh or tanged metal are equated with a porous metal sheet.” Id. at 5. 6 US 5,672,405 (Sept. 30, 1997). 7 Engineering Toolbox, www.engineeringtoolbox.com/density-solids-d_ 1265.html, accessed Sept. 29, 2018. 8 US 4,981,172 (Jan. 1, 1991). Appeal 2020-001185 Application 15/317,154 4 The Examiner acknowledges that Shives does not disclose the size of the holes in its metal mesh or tanged metal, but finds that Tsukamoto discloses “a heat-dissipating sheet” made of “a graphite sheet and a metal mesh . . . unified by rolling treatment.” Id. at 6. The Examiner also finds that Tsukamoto “states the eye roughness (size) of the mesh body (2) is not particularly limited, but is preferably to set at about 5 to 40 identical patterns in an area of 10 mm x 10 mm.” Id. The Examiner calculates that “40 meshes in 10 mm is 0.25 mm per opening,” which is within the size range recited in claim 1. The Examiner notes that Tsukamoto teaches that “if the eye is too coarse, the effect of preventing delamination and the thermal conductivity in the thickness direction deteriorate. If the eye is too fine, the flexibility decreases and weight increases.” Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to employ the claimed mesh pore size motivated to produce a heat sink with flexibility, thermal conductivity and one which will not delaminate.” Id. The Examiner acknowledges that Shives and Tsukamoto do not teach the density of the fused sheet material. Id. at 7. The Examiner finds that Suzuki discloses “a method of manufacturing a porous metal fiber sintered sheet.” Id. The Examiner finds that Suzuki specifically discloses addition of a binder material such as polyvinyl alcohol fibers then . . . the binder is thermally decomposed, [and] the porous sintered metal fiber sheet is produced. The fiber sheet can be coated with metal by electrolytic plating, vapor deposition and other various known methods (page 3). Suzuki teaches . . . a sheet density of 3 g/cm3. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to substitute the sintered metal sheet of Suzuki for the metal mesh of Shives motivated to produce a porous metal sheet with improved porosity.” Id. Appeal 2020-001185 Application 15/317,154 5 With regard to the density of the fused sheet material, the Examiner reasons that “Shives teaches the graphene sheets are about 0.075 to 3.75 mm thick and the metal core is about 7.5 to 10 mm thick and therefore about 90% of the composite is the metal core and [it is] reasonable to presume that the combined density is 3 g/cm[3] or about 2 gm/cm[3].” Id. Appellant argues that the cited references do not disclose enough information about their respective products to allow calculation of the density of the fused sheet posited by the Examiner. Appeal Br. 4–5. More specifically, Appellant argues that the density of a composite material comprising two materials, for example A and B, is the sum of the product of the volume % of material A occupying the composite material and the density of material A, and the product of the volume % of material B occupying the composite material and the density of material B. Id. at 7. Appellant argues that “Shives only discloses the thicknesses of the graphene sheets and the metal core,” but not the length and width of those components and therefore does not allow a calculation of the density of the fused sheet material. Id. at 8. We agree with Appellant that a preponderance of the evidence does not support the Examiner’s finding that the cited references make obvious a fused sheet having a density of 2.0–6.0 g/cm3. Shives discloses “a thermal spreader material . . . for dissipating the heat from an electronic component.” Shives ¶ 14. The material comprises “sheets of compressed particle of exfoliated graphite (sometimes referred to with the term of art ‘flexible graphite’) sandwiched around non-graphitic materials, especially metallic materials like aluminum or copper, advantageously in the form of a mesh.” Id. Shives states that “[f]lexible graphite sheet and foil are coherent, with good handling strength, and are suitably compressed, e.g. by roll pressing, to Appeal 2020-001185 Application 15/317,154 6 a thickness of about 0.075 mm to 3.75 mm and a typical density of about 0.1 to 1.5 grams per cubic centimeter (g/cm3).” Id. ¶ 52.9 Tsukamoto discloses “a heat dissipating sheet characterized in that a meshed body made of a metal wire is superimposed on the front and back surfaces of the expanded graphite sheet, respectively, and the expanded graphite sheet and the mesh body are integrated.” Tsukamoto ¶ 10.10 Tsukamoto teaches that “[t]he eye roughness (size) of the mesh body . . . is not particularly limited, but it is preferable to set so that about 5 to 40 identical patterns appear within an area of 10 mm x 10 mm.” Id. ¶ 21. The Examiner interprets Tsukamoto’s paragraph 21 as teaching that the openings in its metal mesh are preferably 0.25 mm in size. Final Action 6. Appellant does not dispute this finding. See Appeal Br. 7–8. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to use a mesh having holes with a size of 0.25 mm (within the range recited in claim 1) in Shives’ product, “motivated to produce a heat sink with flexibility, thermal conductivity and one which will not delaminate.” Final Action 6. Suzuki discloses “a method of manufacturing [a] porous metal fiber sintered sheet suitable for use filters, catalyst, to the conductive material and 9 The “foil” recited in paragraph 52 does not appear to refer to the metallic core of Shives’ product. See, e.g., Shives ¶ 11 (“graphite sheet material, e.g. web, paper, stripe, tape, foil, mat, or the like”), ¶ 17 (discussing methods of adhering the graphite layers and the core layer), ¶ 82 (“Once the flexible graphite material is formed, . . . it is then sandwiched about the core layer.”). Thus, we understand Shives to disclose a graphite sheet with a density of 0.1–1.5 g/cm3. 10 Our citations are to the English translation of Tsukamoto that was entered into the record July 25, 2018. Appeal 2020-001185 Application 15/317,154 7 the like.” Suzuki 2:1–2.11 In a working example, Suzuki describes a “high metal fiber blended sheet” made by “a wet paper method” from a “slurry consisting of 5 wt% PVA [polyvinyl alcohol] fibers . . . and 95 wt% stainless steel fiber,” “pressed under normal temperature conditions.” Id. at 4:24–27. Suzuki states that the resulting sheet had “a sheet density of 3g/cm3.” Id. at 4:27. The sheet was then “sintered . . . to prepare a porous sintered metal fiber sheet,” which was “coated with silver” using an “[e]lectroless plating solution process.” Id. at 4:28–32. The resulting product had “an average pore size of 2μm.” Id. at 5:1. The Examiner reasons that, because Shives teaches that the graphite sheets in its product are 0.075–3.75 mm thick12 and the core is 7.5–10 mm thick,13 “about 90% of the composite is the metal core and [it is] reasonable to presume that the combined density is 3 g/cm[3] or about 2 gm/cm[3].” Final Action 7. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s reasoning is flawed. As Appellant points out, “Shives discloses that the sizes of the layers of graphene and the layers of porous metal are different (e.g., Figs. 1–8 of Shives).” Reply Br. 7. Shives does not disclose the overall relative amounts of graphite sheet and porous metal core that are present in its product, and therefore the Examiner’s conclusion that 90% of Shives’ product is the metal core is not supported by the evidence. 11 Our citations are to the English translation of Suzuki that was entered into the record March 12, 2019. 12 Shives ¶ 52. 13 “Th[e] core layer should . . . be no more than about 10 mm in thickness, most preferably no more than about 7.5 mm in thickness.” Shives ¶ 82. Appeal 2020-001185 Application 15/317,154 8 In addition, we note that the rejection is premised on substituting the sintered metal sheet disclosed by Suzuki, modified to have the pore size disclosed by Tsukamoto, for the metal core of Shives’ product. See Final Action 7 (“It would have been obvious . . . to substitute the sintered metal sheet of Suzuki for the metal mesh of Shives.”); id. at 6 (Based on Tsukamoto, “[i]t would have been obvious . . . to employ the claimed mesh pore size.”). The Examiner has not pointed to any disclosure in Suzuki of the thickness of its metal sheet, and specifically has not pointed to a disclosure that Suzuki’s metal sheet is 7.5–10 mm thick. The Examiner’s calculation therefore does not reflect the properties of the product upon which the rejection is based. For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the rejections based on Shives, Tsukamoto, and Suzuki (with or without Plank) are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence of record. We therefore reverse them. Obviousness based on Tsukamoto, Engineering Toolbox, and Suzuki Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 14, 15, 19, and 20 stand rejected as obvious based on Tsukamoto, Engineering Toolbox, and Suzuki, and claims 3 and 16 stand rejected as obvious based on Tsukamoto, Engineering Toolbox, Suzuki, and Haerle. The same issue is dispositive for both rejections. The Examiner finds that “Tsukamoto teaches a graphite sheet and a metal mesh and unified by rolling treatment,” and calculates that Tsukamoto’s preferred hole size includes 0.25 mm. Final Action 11. The Examiner also finds that “Tsukamoto teaches an example produced of 150 mesh. . . . 150 mesh is 0.105 mm mesh opening.” Id. Appeal 2020-001185 Application 15/317,154 9 The Examiner finds that “Tsukamoto teaches the density of the expanded graphite sheet . . . is also not particularly limited, but preferably it is about 0.80 to 2.2 g/cm3.” Id. at 12. The Examiner also finds that Tsukamoto teaches a material having a high thermal conductivity is preferably used as the material of the metal wire constituting the mesh body. . . . For example, copper, stainless steel, platinum, titanium, aluminum, inconel, monel metal, nickel and the like, or an alloy thereof. . . . A specific metal wire having a thickness of, for example, about 0.05 to 0.15 mm is suitably used. Id. The Examiner reasons that “Tsukamoto teaches an aluminum mesh sheet and aluminum has a density of 2.7 g/cm3.” Id.14 The Examiner concludes that “[t]he combination of a graphite sheet in the claimed density range and an aluminum mesh sheet in the claimed density range would result in a laminate in the claimed density range of 2–6 g/cm3.” Id. As we understand it, the Examiner’s reasoning is that, if Tsukamoto’s product was made using a graphite sheet with a density of 0.8–1.5 g/cm3 (i.e., within the range recited in claim 1) and an aluminum mesh sheet (with a density of 2.7 g/cm3), the resulting product would necessarily have a density of 2–6 g/cm3. We agree with Appellant, however, that Tsukamoto does not provide enough information to support the Examiner’s conclusion. See Appeal Br. 8–9; Reply Br. 8–9. In particular, Tsukamoto states that “a thickness of about 0.10 and 1.5 mm is suitably used” for its graphite sheet. Tsukamoto ¶ 18. Tsukamoto also 14 The Examiner “relies upon the engineering toolbox for teaching the density of the aluminum is 2.7 g/cm3.” Ans. 13. Appeal 2020-001185 Application 15/317,154 10 teaches that a “specific metal wire having a thickness of, for example, about 0.05 to 0.15 mm is suitably used” as the material for the mesh body. Id. ¶ 20. As the Examiner’s own calculations show, however, a graphite sheet with a thickness of 0.1 mm combined with an aluminum sheet with a thickness of 0.05 mm results in a composite with a density below the range recited in claim 1. Ans. 15. In addition, we note that the Examiner’s calculation is based on the density of aluminum; i.e., a solid sheet of aluminum. Tsukamoto’s product, however, comprises a metal mesh, made of metal wires having holes between them. Thus, the density of solid aluminum does not accurately reflect the density of the metal mesh in Tsukamoto’s product. The Examiner also cites Suzuki as disclosing a “metal fiber sheet with a blend of metal fibers” and “a sheet density of 3 g/cm3.” Final Action 13. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to substitute the sintered metal sheet of Suzuki for the metal mesh of Tsukamoto motivated to produce a porous metal sheet with improved porosity.” Id. The Examiner provides calculations to show that, if Suzuki’s sheet, with a thickness of 0.05–5 mm, was combined with Tsukamoto’s graphite sheet (with a thickness of 0.1–1.5 mm and a density of 1.5 g/cm3), the resulting composite would have an overall density of 2–2.64 g/cm3. Ans. 14. Again, however, the references do not provide enough information to support the Examiner’s conclusion. Specifically, the Examiner’s calculations are based on using the metal layer thickness disclosed by Tsukamoto (0.05– 5 mm15) but this basis of the rejection is based on using Suzuki’s metal fiber 15 The Examiner’s finding that the wire of Tsukamoto’s mesh body can be up to 5 mm thick appears to be based on a translational error. Tsukamoto Appeal 2020-001185 Application 15/317,154 11 sheet in place of the mesh body made of metal wires that is disclosed by Tsukamoto. Final Action 13 (“It would have been obvious . . . to substitute the sintered metal sheet of Suzuki for the metal mesh of Tsukamoto.”). The Examiner has not pointed to any disclosure in Suzuki of the thickness of its metal sheet, and specifically has not pointed to a disclosure that Suzuki’s metal sheet is 0.05–5 mm thick. The Examiner’s calculation therefore does not reflect the properties of the product upon which the rejection is based. For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the rejections based on Tsukamoto, Engineering Toolbox, and Suzuki (with or without Haerle) are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence of record. We therefore reverse them. states that “[t]he thickness of the metal wire constituting the net-like body (2) can be appropriately set according to the thickness of the expanded graphite sheet (1), and when the thickness of the expanded graphite sheet is set to 1, it is 0.1–0. A diameter of 5, more preferably a diameter of 0.2 to 0.3 is preferably used.” Tsukamoto ¶ 20 (emphasis added). Grammatically, this machine translation makes no sense. A more likely translation is: “A diameter of 0.1–0.5, more preferably a diameter of 0.2 to 0.3 is preferably used.” We also note that this passage of Tsukamoto does not specify the units that are intended. Appeal 2020-001185 Application 15/317,154 12 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20 103 Shives, Tsukamoto, Suzuki 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20 5, 18 103 Shives, Tsukamoto, Suzuki, Plank 5, 18 1, 2, 6, 7, 14, 15, 19, 20 103 Tsukamoto, Engineering Toolbox, Suzuki 1, 2, 6, 7, 14, 15, 19, 20 3, 16 103 Tsukamoto, Engineering Toolbox, Suzuki, Haerle 3, 16 Overall Outcome 1–7, 14– 20 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation