Hak Sik JOO

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 8, 2021

2020001185 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 8, 2021)

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