WACKER CHEMIE AGDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 20, 20202019004785 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2020) 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. 14/771,421 08/28/2015 Matthias VIETZ WASN0218PUSA 5837 22045 7590 05/20/2020 Brooks Kushman 1000 Town Center 22nd Floor Southfield, MI 48075 EXAMINER HIBBERT-COPELAND, MARY CATHERINE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3731 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/20/2020 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): docketing@brookskushman.com kdilucia@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte MATTHIAS VIETZ and WERNER LAZARUS ________________ Appeal 2019-004785 Application 14/771,421 Technology Center 3700 ________________ Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, LISA M. GUIJT, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appeal 2019-004785 Application 14/771,421 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 filed a Request for Rehearing (“Req. Reh’g”) dated April 13, 2020 of the Decision on Appeal mailed February 20, 2020 (“Decision”). This Decision affirmed the Examiner’s rejections of claims 12–22. See Decision 11. Appellant submits this request because “it is evident that the Board misunderstands the problems addressed by the invention” and further, “that the claim 13 has been construed improperly.” Req. Reh’g 2. Upon consideration of Appellant’s Request, we do not modify our opinion. A REQUEST FOR REHEARING A request for rehearing “must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the [Patent Trial and Appeal Board, hereinafter “Board”].” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1). This section also states that arguments not raised in the briefs before the Board and evidence not previously relied upon in the briefs “are not permitted in the request for rehearing except as permitted by paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(4) of this section.” In addition, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity to express disagreement with a decision without setting forth points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board in rendering its Decision. The proper course for an Appellant dissatisfied with a Board decision is to seek judicial review, not to file a request for rehearing to reargue issues that have already been decided. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 141, 145. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Wacker Chemie AG.” Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-004785 Application 14/771,421 3 ANALYSIS Appellant primarily presents arguments regarding sole independent method claim 12, but also separately addresses dependent claims 13 and 22. See Req. Reh’g generally. In like fashion, we also primarily address claim 12, as well as discuss claims 13 and 22. Claim 12 recites, in the preamble, “[a] method for packing polysilicon chunks, comprising” a number of steps. In the order recited, these steps are, taking portions of polysilicon chunks, weighing such portions, optionally classifying such portions, storing same in a multitude of buffer vessels, defining a target weight to be packed, combining chunks from the buffer vessels to attain this target weight, introducing these chunks into a bag, and closing the bag. Claim 12 also recites that, based on the weight in the buffer vessels, “less than 0.5% of fine material forms.” Notably, claim 12 provides no structure or other indication as to how such limited fine material formation is accomplished, only that it is accomplished. It is this achievement of forming “less than 0.5% of fine material” that is the focus of Appellant’s Request. Appellant discusses past methods of packaging polysilicon, but states, “[t]he present application is not directed to any of the above comminuting, sieving, or classifying steps except as might be practiced as preliminary steps, prior to the claimed method.”2 Req. Reh’g 4. However, claim 12 2 As if to emphasize, Appellant states, “[i]t is the packaging operation, an operation which occurs after the classification operation and after the removal of dust and fines, to which the present invention is directed.” Req. Reh’g 4; see also id. at 6 (“It is the prevention of the formation of these packaging-generated fines to which the claims are directed, not the removal of previously inadvertently (Holzlwimmer) or purposefully (Flottmann) generated fines.”). Appeal 2019-004785 Application 14/771,421 4 does not differentiate or distinguish these “old” steps from the presently claimed steps. Instead claim 12 simply recites the above noted steps for “[a] method for packaging polysilicon chunks.” Claims Appendix. This lack of demarcation was addressed in the Decision which stated, “[t]he rejection, however, is not directed to a combination that may require additional or ‘further sieving’ during packaging.” Decision 7 (referencing Appeal Br. 8). Hence, it is not clear how this issue was misapprehended or overlooked by the Board. To further underscore the matter, Appellant states, “[w]hat is claimed is a packaging method (lines 1–10 of claim 12) wherein less than 0.5 wt. % of fine materials forms.” Req. Reh’g 8. It appears Appellant is construing the formation of fines as a desired end result (claim 12 recites “wherein, based on the total weight of the at least 4 portions contained in the buffer vessels, less than 0.5% of fine material forms”). However, the Decision addressed how the combination of cited art disclosed this limitation, noting the Examiner’s (correct) statement, “the sieving process of Flottmann as part of the packing process reduces the amount of fine material formation in the final bag.” Decision 7–8 (referencing Ans. 10); see also Flottmann 2:24–26 (“The dust formed is advantageously separated from the flow of silicone fragments, for example by means of an extraction unit.”), 2:44–46 (“The silicone fragments are classified and separated and dust is removed by means of these passage openings.”). Appellant also seems to agree with this assessment stating that, when discussing Holzlwimmer and Flottmann, “all the fines generated prior to the packaging operation are removed. Thus, prior to packaging, the polysilicon chunks contain no fines.” Req. Reh’g 6. Appeal 2019-004785 Application 14/771,421 5 As such, it is not clear how the Board may have misapprehended or overlooked this matter. Appellant further contends, “[t]he problems addressed by Appellant are those of reducing the proportion of fines contained in the bags.” Req. Reh’g 5; see also id. at 6, 9 (“none of the references even acknowledge that additional fines are formed during packaging”). However, the Supreme Court stated, “[i]n determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls. What matters is the objective reach of the claim.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Hence, we must look to the claim language, not Appellant’s avowed purpose or problem addressed. On this point, and as addressed in the Decision, Appellant is not persuasive that the cited art fails to disclose the recited limitations. See Decision generally. Consequently, even should the Board have failed to focus on “[t]he problems addressed by Appellant” as asserted above, such failure is not indicative the Board misapprehended or overlooked this matter. Appellant also contends, in footnote 8, that “[t]hese high demands distinguish this technology from other, more mundane packaging methods.” Req. Reh’g 5. However, the only “high demands” recited in claim 12 is the recitation that, based on the total weight in the various buffer vessels, “less than 0.5% of fine material forms.” As expressed in the Decision, “the Examiner relies on Flottmann for achieving the recited amount of fines.” Decision 7 (referencing Final Act. 4). Thus, Appellant is not persuasive that the above noted “high demands” were misapprehended or overlooked by the Board. Appeal 2019-004785 Application 14/771,421 6 Appellant further emphasizes “during packaging” (Req. Reh’g 6), “prior to the packaging operation” (Req. Reh’g 7), and “formed during packaging” (Req. Reh’g 8, 10) as if to indicate a specific time during which product is actually deposited into a bag. However, as stated above, claim 12 recites a “method for packing polysilicon chunks” that employs many so- called ‘pre-deposit’ steps in addition to the steps of “introducing the polysilicon chunks . . . into a plastic bag and closing the plastic bag.” Thus, any attempt by Appellant to separate pre-packaging steps from actual packaging steps is inconsistent with the language of claim 12, which refers to all the steps as pertaining to “[a] method for packing.” Claims Appendix. We thus are not apprised as to how the Board may have misapprehended or overlooked this point. Appellant also states, “[f]orming fines is not at all related to removing fines by sieving (Flottmann).” Req. Reh’g 8. “Flottmann produces fines; he does not prevent their formation.” Req. Reh’g 9. It is not disputed that Flottmann produces fines, and that Flottmann also teaches their removal.3 See Flottmann 2:24–26, 2:42–46 above. The Examiner found that “the sieving process of Flottmann as part of the packing process reduces the amount of fine material formation in the final bag.” Ans. 10 (emphasis added). The Decision quotes and discusses this finding. See Decision 7–8. Consequently, it is not clear how the Board misapprehended or overlooked this point. 3. “Combining Flottmann with Holzlwimmer teaches only what has long been done in polysilicon packaging: removal of dust and fines prior to packaging.” Req. Reh’g 8. Appellant states, “[t]hat is not what is claimed” (Req. Reh’g 8), but we disagree, the reduction of fines in the final product is exactly that which is claimed. Appeal 2019-004785 Application 14/771,421 7 When addressing Zeyer, Appellant acknowledges that “multi- compartment weighers were known well prior to” Appellant’s filing date. Req. Reh’g 10; see also id. at 11. This acknowledgement of prior multi- compartment teachings is consistent with the Examiner’s reliance on Zeyer. See Final Act. 3; Decision 5–6. Thus, there is no indication the Board misapprehended or overlooked the teachings of Zeyer when rendering the Decision. Appellant additionally presents new arguments to the effect asking “[w]hy, then, haven’t those skilled in the art used a device like Zeyer’s?” and also “long sought need.” Req. Reh’g 12. Despite not previously being raised, “[m]ere argument or conclusory statements . . . [do] not suffice.” In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Addressing, now, the Board’s interpretation of claim 13, this claim recites, “the polysilicon chunks comprise a plurality of polysilicon chunks or individual polysilicon chunks.” We could discern no difference between “a plurality” of chunks and “individual” chunks. Decision 4. Appellant now seeks to amend this language by, in the latter phrase, referring to a single “chunk” rather than the plural “chunks” as originally recited. See Req. Reh’g 13 (“a plurality of polysilicon chunks or a single polysilicon chunk” and “[i]n other words, a 1 kg portion may comprise five 200 g chunks, or [may] comprise a single 1 kg chunk”) (emphasis added). We stand by our interpretation of the original claim language involving the plural term “chunks.” Regarding claim 22, Appellant notes the industry standard that “the contents of the bags should be within ± 1% of the target weight.” Req. Reh’g 4. Appellant states, “[p]rior to the present invention, it was necessary Appeal 2019-004785 Application 14/771,421 8 for manual intervention to occur in order to meet these weight tolerance standards.” Req. Reh’g 4; see also id. at 5, 10. We note that claim 12 is silent as to whether “manual intervention” is required or not. Thus, Appellant’s focus on an unclaimed feature to distinguishing past methods is not persuasive the Board misapprehended or overlooked Wochner’s teaching of “the recited weight tolerance range.” Decision 10 (referencing Final Act. 6). Appellant, in closing, also newly argues there was ambiguity in the Examiner’s rejection. See Req. Reh’g 13–14. However, we are not persuaded, after the lengthy discussion above, that the Examiner’s rejection was so uninformative that Appellant was prevented from recognizing and unable to counter the grounds of rejection. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011). DECISION Appellant’s Request for Rehearing has been granted to the extent that the Board reconsidered its Decision in light of the statements made in this Request, but is denied with respect to the Board making any modification to the Decision. DENIED Outcome of Decision on Rehearing: Claims 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Denied Granted 12–20 103(a) Holzlwimmer, Zeyer, Flottmann 12–20 21, 22 103(a) Holzlwimmer, 21, 22 Appeal 2019-004785 Application 14/771,421 9 Zeyer, Flottmann, Wochner Overall Outcome 12–22 Final Outcome of Appeal after Rehearing: Claims 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 12–20 103(a) Holzlwimmer, Zeyer, Flottmann 12–20 21, 22 103(a) Holzlwimmer, Zeyer, Flottmann, Wochner 21, 22 Overall Outcome 12–22 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation