Beau B. Burton, Ph.D.
Associate
Tel (703) 412-4525

Beau B. Burton, Ph.D.

Associate

BEAU B. BURTON, Ph.D., is a patent attorney in the firm’s Chemical Patent Prosecution group. His practice includes the prosecution and preparation of patent applications.

Before attending law school, Dr. Burton obtained his Ph.D. in chemistry under the direction of Professor Stephen M. George. Dr. Burton’s graduate research focused on the fabrication, design and characterization of ultrathin films and nanostructures for applications such as ceramics, nanothermites, gate dielectrics, gas diffusion barriers, and microelectromechanical systems. He designed and synthesized novel silicon based precursors for the atomic layer deposition (ALD) of SiO2 and developed innovative surface chemistries for the ALD of MgO, MnO, TaN, and SiO2. Dr. Burton also refined numerous silicon-comprising oligomer and polymer synthetic methodologies. Throughout his research, he gained extensive experience with high vacuum techniques and surface analysis techniques including X-ray reflectivity, X-ray diffraction, ellipsometry, mass spectrometry, transmission electron microscopy, quartz crystal microbalance, and FTIR spectroscopy.

While attending law school, Dr. Burton served as an Affiliate Professor of Chemistry at Loyola University Maryland teaching both general and physical chemistry. As a former professor, Dr. Burton holds a deep understanding in the science behind his clients’ innovations. He is especially skilled in effectively distilling and communicating both complex scientific and legal issues.

Friday, July 27, 2012

In Ex Parte Ransquin, the Board reversed the Examiner’s obviousness rejection noting that the Examiner’s “continued reference” in his Answer to what the prior art discloses, evidenced “a fundamental misunderstanding by the Examiner of the difference between what references teach or disclose and what a proposed combination of references...

Friday, May 25, 2012

In Ex Parte Nakhamkin, the Board reversed the examiner’s obviousness rejection as relying solely on a per se rule of obviousness. Ex Parte Nakhamkin, No. 2012-003291 (B.P.A.I. May 23, 2012). The Board emphasized that “when determining whether a claim is obvious, an Examiner must make ‘a searching comparison of the...

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

In Ex Parte Jansen (Appeal  2010-002637, in Application Serial No. 11/185,527, decision issued March 13, 2012), the BPAI reversed the examiner’s finding of obviousness and reiterated the importance of the examiner’s requirement to articulate a rational basis for finding of obviousness.

The invention on appeal was directed...