NCC NANO, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 20, 2021

2020005978 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 20, 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.
15/870,552 01/12/2018 Kurt A. Schroder NCC.001009B 6597
124676 7590 08/20/2021
Russell Ng PLLC
8729 Shoal Creek Blvd., Suite 100
Austin, TX 78757
EXAMINER
KASTLER, SCOTT R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1733
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/20/2021 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):
stephanie@russellnglaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KURT A. SCHRODER, STEVE McCOOL,
DENNY HAMILL, DENNIS WILSON, WAYNE FURLAN,
KEVIN WALTER, DARRIN WILLAUER, and KARL MARTIN
Appeal 2020-005978
Application 15/870,552
Technology Center 1700
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, RAE LYNN P. GUEST, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claim 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Novacentrix Corp. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-005978
Application 15/870,552

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal
and is set forth below (footnotes added for clarity):
1. A system for sintering materials, said system
comprising:
a printer for printing a film on a substrate using a
formulation having copper of less than 1
micrometer[2];
a flashlamp generates a plurality of
electromagnetic emission pulses for irradiating
said film on said substrate having a decomposition
temperature below 450 degrees Celsius in ambient
air in order to sinter said film on said substrate
such that the conductivity of said film on said
substrate increases by at least two-fold, wherein
said film includes at least one metal less than 1
micrometer[3]; and
a control circuit controls said flashlamp to limit a
duration of each of said electromagnetic emission
pulses to be between one microsecond and one
hundred milliseconds.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Michaels US 3,445,626 May 20, 1969
Schroder US 7,820,097 B2 Oct. 26, 2010
Rawson US 2012/0207941 Al Aug. 16, 2012

2 We refer to ¶ 17, for example, on page 4 of the instant Specification
regarding the recitation of “copper of less than 1 micrometer.” Therein, it is
described that nanometal powders such as copper may be used having
dimensions less than about 1 micron. We note that there is currently no 35
USC 112, 2nd rejection (indefiniteness) of claim 1.
3 See footnote 2.
Appeal 2020-005978
Application 15/870,552

3
THE REJECTIONS4,5
1. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Michaels.
2. Claim 1 is rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1) as
being anticipated by Schroder.
3. Claim 1 is rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
being anticipated by Rawson.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering the
argued claim and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded of
reversible error in the appealed rejection.
Rejection 1
Beginning on page 4 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant states that claim 1
recites a sintering system having “a printer for printing a film on a substrate
using a formulation having copper of less than 1 micrometer” and “a

4 Apppellant does not appeal Rejections 2 and 3. Appeal Br. 3–5.
Therefore, we summarily affirm Rejections 2 and 3.
5 Claims 2–7 have been canceled by Appellant in the Amendment filed June
4, 2020. Ans. 3. Because these claims have been canceled, the rejection
under 35 USC § 112, 4th paragraph has been withdrawn. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2020-005978
Application 15/870,552

4
flashlamp . . . for irradiating said film on said substrate . . . such that the
conductivity of said film on said substrate increases by at least two-fold.”
Appellant argues that Michaels discloses a xerographic image fixing
apparatus that is capable of fixing unused toner particle pattern 32 on a
record card 2. Appeal Br. 4. Appellant argues that the Examiner is
attempting to characterize Michaels’ xerographic image fixing apparatus as
the claimed printer. Id. Appellant submits that, from a structural standpoint,
Michaels does not disclose the claimed printer “for printing a film on a
substrate using a formulation having copper of less than 1 micrometer”
because loose toner particles are not considered as a film printed on a
substrate. Appeal Br. 4. Appellant also submits that from a functional
standpoint, Michaels’ xerographic image fixing apparatus cannot print a film
on a substrate. Appellant argues that Michaels’ xerographic image fixing
apparatus cannot sinter a printed film to increase its conductivity by “at least
two-fold.” Appeal Br. 4.
We are unpersuaded by the aforementioned line of argument. As
stated by the Examiner on pages 3–4 of the Answer, Appellant’s
Specification—in paragraphs 44–47, for example—teaches that a
xerographic apparatus is suitable for use in the claimed system. This
undermines Appellant argument that Michaels’ xerographic image fixing
apparatus is not capable of doing so. Absent such supporting evidence,
Appellant’s assertion amounts to a mere conclusory statement that is entitled
to little, if any, probative weight. See, e.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,
1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
We further agree with the Examiner’s response made on page 3–4 of
the Answer. Therein, the Examiner explains that it has been held that where
Appeal 2020-005978
Application 15/870,552

5
an apparatus of the prior art could, if desired, be operated in a stated manner,
whether or not such a method or manner of operation is shown or suggested
by the prior art, then the method or manner of operation of an apparatus
alone cannot be relied upon to fairly further distinguish claims to an
apparatus itself. “[T]he patentability of apparatus or composition claims
depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that
structure.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d
801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not
what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d
1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Appellant next states that claim 1 recites “control circuit controls said
flashlamp to limit a duration of each of said electromagnetic emission pulses
to be between one microsecond and one hundred milliseconds.” Appeal Br.
4. Appellant argues that Michaels discloses a timer circuit 18 and a control
circuit 20. Appellant refers to column 2, line 68–column 3, line 2 of
Michaels and states that Michaels explains that “timer circuit [18] is
designed to permit a certain period to expire before a signal is sent to the
lamp control circuit 20 which trigger[s] the flashlamp in assembly 10[,]
thereby fusing any toner particles to the record sheet then presently under
the flashlamp assembly.” Appellant submits that thus neither timer circuit
18 nor control circuit 20 is designed to control the pulse timing, or
specifically the “duration of each of said electromagnetic emission pulses to
be between one microsecond and one handred milliseconds,” as claimed.
Appeal Br. 5.
We are unpersuaded by this line of argument and agree with the
Examiner’s stated response made on page 4 of the Answer. Therein, the
Appeal 2020-005978
Application 15/870,552

6
Examiner explains how Michaels’ controller is capable of operating as
claimed.
Appellant reiterates similar arguments in the Reply Brief. Reply Br.
2–3. We are unpersuaded for the aforementioned reasons.
In view of the above, we affirm Rejection 1.
We summarily affirm Rejections 2 and 3 (see footnote 2, supra).
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1 102 Michaels 1
1 102 Schroder 1
1 102 Rawson 1
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED