Ex Parte Conrad et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 7, 2012

11079649 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2012)

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. 11/079,649 03/14/2005 Armin Conrad DT-6970 2444 30377 7590 11/07/2012 DAVID TOREN, ESQ. ABELMAN FRAYNE & SCHWAB 666 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10017-5621 EXAMINER EASTMAN, AARON ROBERT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/07/2012 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 ARMIN CONRAD and PETER FAHRENBACH ____________________ Appeal 2010-010306 Application 11/079,649 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: STEFAN STAICOVICI, JAMES P. CALVE, and SCOTT A. DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judges. DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-010306 Application 11/079,649 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Armin Conrad and Peter Fahrenbach (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. THE INVENTION Appellants’ invention relates to a turbomolecular pump including a plurality of rotor disc 8 and stator disc 9 pairs provided with blades 10 having an angle diminishing from a steeper angle of the disc pair blades adjacent a high-vacuum side to a lower angle of the disc pair blades adjacent a vacuum side of the pump. Spec. 2, figs. 1 and 2. The claims are specifically directed to a turbomolecular pump as recited in claim 1, reproduced below, which is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A turbomolecular pump, comprising a housing (1) having a high-vacuum side (2) and a vacuum side (3); and a plurality of alternatively axially arranged one behind another, rotor and stator discs (8,9) provided with blades (10), wherein the blades (10) located in vicinity of the high-vacuum side (2) have a blade angle (α) that is steeper than a blade angle (α) of the blades (10) located in vicinity of the vacuum side (3), wherein the blade angle (α) of the blades (10) located in the vicinity of the vacuum side (3) amounts to less than 8°, and wherein an axial height (D) of the blades located in the vicinity of the vacuum side is less than 5 mm. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Appeal 2010-010306 Application 11/079,649 3 Seippel Klatt Shinojima US 3,953,148 US 4,309,143 US 5,033,936 Apr. 27, 1976 Jan. 5, 1982 Jul. 23, 1991 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1-4 and 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Klatt and Seippel. Ans. 3. Claim 8 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Klatt, Seippel and Shinojima. Ans. 6. ANALYSIS Claims 1-4 and 6-8 as being unpatentable over Klatt and Seippel. Appellants argue claims 1-4 and 6-8 as a group. App. Br. 7. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Claims 2-4 and 6-8 stand or fall with claim 1. Id. The Examiner found that Klatt discloses a turbomolecular pump, including a housing having a high-vacuum side and a vacuum side, as well as a plurality of axially arranged rotor and stator discs (6, 10) with blades (2, 5), “wherein the blades (2, 5) located in vicinity of the high-vacuum side have a blade angle that is steeper than a blade angle of the blades (2, 5) located in vicinity of the vacuum side (col. 4 lines 12-22).” 1 Ans. 3. The Examiner noted that “Klatt et al. do not disclose wherein the blade angle of the blades (2, 5) located in the vicinity of the vacuum side amounts to less 1 We understand that Appellants’ “high-vacuum” side 2 is the suction side 12 of Klatt’s pump and “vacuum side” 3 is Klatt’s pre-vacuum side. See e.g., Appellants’ Drawings, fig. 1 and Klatt, fig. 1. Appeal 2010-010306 Application 11/079,649 4 than 8°, nor do Klatt et al. disclose wherein an axial height of the blades located in the vicinity of the vacuum side is less than 5 mm.” Id. at 4. The Examiner turned to Seippel for the teaching to provide the axial height of blades on the vacuum (pre-vacuum) side of the pump as small as possible and that “a small ratio, (b2 · t)/W where b = the width of a blade row perpendicular to the plane of that row (namely the axial height of the blade), will achieve good efficiencies.” Id. The Examiner concluded that one of skill in the art would recognize the blade angle as a result effective variable, and that by decreasing the blade angle this would in turn decrease the axial height of the blade. Id. The Examiner further concluded that it would have been within the routine skill of one in the art to implement the blade angle of less than 8° because “discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.” Id. Appellants argue that neither Klatt nor Seippel disclose an angle of the blades on the vacuum side (exhaust side) being less than 8°, nor an axial height of the blades on the vacuum side being less than 5mm. App. Br. 8-9. According to Appellants: a small axial height of a blade in Seippel et al does not necessarily mean an axial height of less than 5 mm. Furthermore, Seippel et al. teach that a small ratio (b2 • t)/W, results in blade profiles which are thick compared to the chord (column 1, lines 51-53), which is contrary to the object of Klatt et al. to provide blades as thin as possible, (column 2, lines 17- 21) of only .5 mm (column 4, line 29). App. Br. 9. In other words, Appellants argue that Seippel’s discussion relating to the goal of reducing the axial height of the blades, does not however render the specific claimed blade axial height range of less than 5mm obvious, and furthermore is contrary to Klatt’s desire for very thin Appeal 2010-010306 Application 11/079,649 5 blades where Seippel explains that as the (b2 • t)/W ratio tends towards a smaller value, the turbine blade gets thicker. App. Br. 8-9 and Seippel col. 1, ll. 46-53. Appellants therefore assert that “Seippel et al. contain[s] no teaching that decreasing the blade angle would decrease the axial height of the blades. The Office Action contains no evidence, except its reliance on Seippel et al., that decreasing the blade angle results in a smaller axial height of the blades.” App. Br. 11. It is undisputed that Klatt fails to disclose a blade angle of less than 8°, as well as an axial height of the blades on the vacuum side being less than 5mm. Ans. 4, App. Br. 8, and see Klatt, col. 4, ll. 12-16. For its part, Seippel also does not specifically disclose blade angles or a blade thickness. See Seippel col. 2, ll. 22-40. Although we appreciate the Examiner’s position that given a blade of fixed size and dimensions, decreasing the blade angle in turn decreases the axial height of the blade, we find this explanation insufficient to explain what would have prompted a person of skill in the art to modify Klatt to have a blade angle of less than 8° and an axial height of less than 5mm where Seippel explains that optimization of the ratio (b2 • t)/W results in an increased thickness of the blade, which in turn structurally increases its axial height. Seippel col. 1, ll. 46-53. Moreover, we do not agree with the finding that Seippel teaches blade angle as a “result effective variable.” While blade width b (i.e., axial height) as discussed supra may be a result effective variable, there is no explanation in Seippel’s disclosure, nor sufficient evidence provided by the Examiner, relating Seippel’s small ratio formula (b2 • t)/W to the blade angle for us to agree with the Examiner that the blade angle is a result-effective variable.2 2 Blade pitch t is understood in the field to be the radial spacing between the turbine blades. Seippel col. 1, l. 34 and fig. 2. Appeal 2010-010306 Application 11/079,649 6 Although we understand that the blade angle may vary, the Examiner’s reasoning to specifically select a blade angle of 8°, or anything less than the angle of 10 degrees at the outlet as described in Klatt, is not supported by factual evidence. Klatt col. 4, ll. 12-16. The Examiner has not provided a reasoning with rational underpinning and as such, the Examiner’s reasoning cannot properly serve as a basis for concluding that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to specifically select a blade angle of less than 8° and an axial height of less than 5 mm in the pump of Klatt. Thus, the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Klatt in view of Seippel cannot be sustained. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (If an independent claim is nonobvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, then any claim dependent therefrom is nonobvious). With respect to the rejection of claim 8, the addition of Shinojima does not cure the deficiencies of Klatt and Seippel as described supra. Thus, the rejection of claim 8 over the combined teachings of Klatt, Seippel and Shinojima likewise cannot be sustained. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-8 is reversed. REVERSED mls