Soucy, Ronald R.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 23, 2019

14199557 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2019)

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.
14/199,557 03/06/2014 Ronald R. Soucy PA-0020428-US-AA 5858
11943 7590 08/23/2019
O''''Shea Getz P.C.
10 Waterside Drive, Suite 205
Farmington, CT 06032
EXAMINER
BRAYTON, JOHN JOSEPH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1794
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2019 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):
shenry@osheagetz.com
uspto@osheagetz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RONALD R. SOUCY
____________

Appeal 2019-001348
Application 14/199,557
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, Acting Vice Chief Administrative
Patent Judge, DONNA M. PRAISS, and JEFFREY R. SNAY,
Administrative Patent Judges.

PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 13–17, 20, and 21. Claims 3–12, 18, and 19
have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed Mar. 6, 2014, the
Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated Jan. 22, 2018, the
Appeal Brief (“Br.”) filed June 21, 2018, and the Examiner’s Answer
(“Ans.”) dated Oct. 1, 2018.
2 Appellant is the Applicant, United Technologies Corp., which, according
to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-001348
Application 14/199,557

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention “relates to cathodic arc deposition and, more
particularly, to a mask assembly therefor.” Spec. ¶ 1. According to the
Specification, masks for cathodic arc deposition use mechanical fasteners to
assemble a mask, but the fasteners are coated with vaporized material during
the process. Id. ¶ 3. As a result, the mask may need to be disassembled and
cleaned. Id. Appellant’s Specification discloses a mask assembly including
a first mask having a first interface (e.g., a hook) and a second mask having
a second interface (e.g., a tab). Id. ¶ 32. The second interface is engaged
with the first interface to assemble the first mask and second mask together.
Id. ¶ 33. According to Appellant, this mask assembly reduces the time to
assemble a mask, reduces the time to disassemble and clean the mask,
reduces ergonomic issues, and improves cycle time for a deposition process.
Id.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative (emphasis added).
1. A mask assembly for a coating system comprising:
a first mask that includes an inbuilt hook and a first pin
aperture; and
a second mask that mounts to said first mask and is
retained thereto by a pin, said second mask includes a tab at
least partially received in said hook,
wherein the first pin aperture and the pin are located on a
first end of the mask assembly and the tab and the hook are
located on a second end of the mask assembly that is opposite
the first end, and
wherein the mask assembly is free of mechanical
threaded fasteners.

Appeal 2019-001348
Application 14/199,557

3
Independent claim 15 recites “[a] method of masking a component for
a cathodic arc vapor deposition system using a mask assembly” comprising,
among other things, retaining a first mask to a second mask and “assembling
a tab in the second mask into an inbuilt hook of the first mask.” Each
remaining claim on appeal depends from claim 1 or 15.

ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections 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 claims in light of the case law presented in this Appeal and each of
Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejections.

Rejection 1: Anticipation or Obviousness
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 13, 14, and 203 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Soucy.4 Final Act. 3–4.

3 The Examiner mistakenly identifies claim 9 as rejected. Final Act. 3.
Appellant canceled claim 9 by amendment on October 26, 2017. The Final
Office Action acknowledges Appellant’s October 26, 2017 response and the
amendment. Final Act. 7.
4 Soucy et al., US 2011/0239934 A1, published October 6, 2011 (“Soucy”).
Appeal 2019-001348
Application 14/199,557

4
Appellant argues the claims together. Br. 7–9. Therefore, we confine
our discussion to claim 1, which we select as representative. Claims 13, 14,
and 20 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Soucy discloses a first mask including an
inbuilt hook, citing the two locking tabs 54 of Soucy’s first mask half body
30, and a second mask including a tab at least partially received in the hook,
citing the locking tab 54 of Soucy’s second mask half body 40. Final Act. 3.
The Examiner further finds that first mask half body 30 includes pin aperture
62, second mask half body 40 is retained to first mask half body 30 by pin
60, that pin aperture 62 and pin 60 are located on an end of Soucy’s mask
assembly opposite to the end where the tab and hook are located, and the
mask assembly is free of mechanical threaded fasteners. Id.
Appellant contends that Soucy does not disclose a second mask that
includes “a tab at least partially received in said hook” of the first mask, as
claim 1 recites. Br. 7. Specifically, Appellant argues that locking tab 54 of
Soucy’s second half mask body 40 is positioned between locking tabs 54 of
first mask half body 30. Id. at 7–8. Appellant asserts locking member 52 is
what engages locking tabs 54 and is received in locking tabs 54 of first half
mask body 30. Id. at 8–9.
In response, the Examiner finds locking tabs 54 and first half pocket
33 of Soucy’s first mask half body 30 function as a hook and tab 54 of
second mask half body 40 is partially received in the hook. Ans. 3. The
Examiner provides sketches comparing Appellant’s invention to Soucy’s
structure, which are reproduced below. Id. at 3–4.
Appeal 2019-001348
Application 14/199,557

5

Examiner’s sketch of Appellant’s invention.

Examiner’s sketch of Soucy’s hook and tab.

The record supports the Examiner’s finding that Soucy’s first mask
half body 30 includes two locking tabs 54 and first half pocket 33. See
Soucy ¶¶ 31–32, Fig. 3. Soucy discloses that locking tab 54 of second mask
half body 40 is positioned between locking tabs 54 of first mask half body
30 when mask half bodies 30, 40 are mated and assembled together.
Id. ¶ 33. Thus, locking tab 54 of second mask half body 40 is at least
partially received in the hook formed by locking tabs 54 and first half pocket
Appeal 2019-001348
Application 14/199,557

6
33 of first mask half body 30, as shown in the Examiner’s sketch above.
Although Soucy teaches that locking member 52 engages locking tabs 54 to
tighten the mask half bodies to one another (id. ¶ 34), claim 1 nevertheless
encompasses a structure thatSoucy discloses. As the Examiner’s sketch
shows, Soucy’s structure would limit lateral movement between bodies 30,
40 in a horizontal direction. Appellant does not rebut the Examiner’s
finding and explanation. Based on this record on Appeal, Appellant’s
arguments do not identify a reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1.
For these reasons and those the Examiner provides, we uphold the
Examiner’s rejection of 1, 13, 14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Soucy.

Rejections 2 and 3: Obviousness
The Examiner rejects claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Soucy in view of Sharp5 for the reasons provided on page
4 of the Final Office Action.
The Examiner rejects claims 15–17 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Soucy in view of Sharp for the reasons provided
on pages 5–6 of the Final Office Action.
Appellant argues Sharp does not cure the deficiencies discussed above
with regard to the rejection of claim 1. Br. 9–10. As discussed above, there
are no deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1 for Sharp to cure based on the
record cited in this Appeal.

5 Sharp et al., US 7,837,843 B2, issued November 23, 2010 (“Sharp”).
Appeal 2019-001348
Application 14/199,557

7
For these reasons, and those the Examiner provides, we uphold the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 15–17, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Soucy and Sharp.

DECISION
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above, in
the Final Office Action, and in the Examiner’s Answer, the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 1, 13, 14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Soucy; rejecting claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Soucy in view of Sharp; and rejecting claims 15–17 and
21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Soucy in view of
Sharp is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).

AFFIRMED