Ex Parte Hou et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 8, 2017

13667314 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2017)

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. 13/667,314 11/02/2012 Tao Hou 013166USAC01 /FEP/GATE/PJT 2270 44257 7590 03/10/2017 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - Applied Materials 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600 HOUSTON, TX 77046 EXAMINER TRAN, THIEN S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/10/2017 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): Pair_Eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TAO HOU, SON T. NGUYEN, KENRIC T. CHOI, and ANH N. NGUYEN Appeal 2015-0052981 Application 13/667,3142 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Our Decision considers Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Dec. 19, 2014) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Apr. 15, 2015), as well as the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Aug. 1, 2014), Advisory Action (“Adv. Act.,” mailed Oct. 16, 2014), and Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Apr. 3, 2015). 2 Appellants identify Applied Materials, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2015-005298 Application 13/667,314 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed invention relates “generally to semiconductor processing, and more particularly to an apparatus for treating a substrate.” Spec. 11.3 Claims 1, 6, and 18 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A heat exchanger, comprising: a first subassembly comprising an insert, the insert comprising a body having: an inlet conduit coupled to the body; a blind passage formed axially in the body; a plurality of nozzles formed therein; an outlet conduit coupled to the body; and a first plurality of heat exchange elements disposed within the body; and a second subassembly comprising a sleeve and a second plurality of heat exchange elements disposed within the sleeve, wherein the insert is sealably engaged inside the sleeve and the insert and the sleeve cooperatively define a thin gap, and wherein each of the plurality of nozzles extend radially between the blind passage and the thin gap and the outlet conduit is in fluid communication with the thin gap. REJECTIONS Claims 1—12, 14—16, and 18—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mao (US 2007/0158451 Al, pub. July 12, 2007), Yane 3 Appellants’ Specification includes two paragraphs numbered as paragraph 1. This citation regards the second paragraph 1, which is in the “Field of the Invention” section. 2 Appeal 2015-005298 Application 13/667,314 (US 5,930,458, iss. July 27, 1999), Eigenberger (WO 2006/125417 A2, pub. Nov. 30, 2006)4, and Alfoldi (US 2005/0241632 Al, pub. Nov. 3, 2005).5 Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mao, Yane, Eigenberger, Alfoldi, and Koch (US 2,868,944, iss. Jan. 13, 1959). Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mao, Yane, Eigenberger, Alfoldi, and Diduck (US 5,809,980, iss. Sept. 22, 1998). Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mao, Yane, Eigenberger, Alfoldi, and Ellis (US 2006/0088386 Al, pub. Apr. 27, 2006). ANALYSIS Rejection based on Mao, Yane, Eigenberger, and Alfoldi With regard to independent claim 1, the Examiner relies on Yane’s bores 130 for teaching the limitation reciting “each of the plurality of nozzles extend radially between the blind passage and the thin gap.” Final Act. 4 (citing Yane, Figs. 1, 9, 12, 13, cols. 8, 9). According to the Examiner, bores 130 extend radially because “[t]he bores 130 of Yane have 4 The Examiner relies on US 2008/0230184 Al as an English equivalent translation of Eigenberger. Final Act. 3. 5 The heading of the rejection omits claim 14 (Final Act. 3), but the Examiner discusses claim 14 in body of the rejection {id. at 12). As such, we understand this rejection to include claim 14, and we consider the omission of claim 14 from the heading to be a typographical error. Furthermore, Appellants’ acknowledge that the Examiner rejected claim 14. See Appeal Br. 1, 16 (referencing the rejection of claims 1—20). 3 Appeal 2015-005298 Application 13/667,314 a diameter dimension that extends in the radial direction.” Adv. Act. 2; see Ans. 5. Appellants argue that it is not reasonable to consider Yane’s bores 130 as extending in a radial direction. Appeal Br. 7—10. In particular, Appellants contend that “[according to Yane, the bores 130, which are parallel to the central longitudinal axis, are formed axially in the body and cannot be considered to extend radially as alleged by the Examiner.” Id. at 10. We agree with Appellants. As set forth in Appellants’ Specification, nozzles 206 have the largest dimension in the radial direction between blind passage 204 and thin gap 218. The Specification refers to the nozzles as “extending radially” {id. H 6—7) and does not expressly describe the nozzles as “extending” in any other direction, e.g., axially. Although nozzles 206 are three-dimensional, the Specification refers to the nozzles as “extending” only in regard to the direction of the longest dimension, namely the radial direction {id. H 6—7). Consequently, giving the phrase “extend radially” the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, one of skill in the art would understand that the phrase refers to nozzles having the largest dimension in the radial direction. This interpretation excludes the Examiner’s construction, which ignores the largest dimension of Yane’s bores (Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 5). Turning to the rejection, as set forth above, the Examiner relies on Yane’s bores 130 for disclosing radially-extending nozzles. Final Act. 4. As shown in Figures 1 and 13 of Yane, the largest dimension of bores 130 is parallel to central longitudinal axis 12, i.e., axial, not perpendicular thereto, i.e. radial. Furthermore, as Appellants point out, Yane expressly teaches that 4 Appeal 2015-005298 Application 13/667,314 “[a] plurality of circumferential spaced-apart bores 130 extend axially through the end wall 128.” Yane 9:17—18 (italics added for emphasis); Appeal Br. 10. Yane exclusively uses the term “extending” in regard to the largest dimension, and Yane expressly describes bores 130 as “extend[ing] axially,” not as extending in any other direction, e.g., radially. Put simply, when comparing Appellants’ claimed invention, as construed above, and the disclosure in Yane, it is clear they are directed to teachings that are different. The former is directed to nozzles that extend radially, whereas the latter is directed to bores that extend axially. Thus, the Examiner’s finding that Yane teaches “each of the plurality of nozzles extend radially between the blind passage and the thin gap” (Final Act. 4) is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2—5 depending therefrom. Independent claims 6 and 18 include limitations similar to claim 1, and the Examiner’s rejection of these independent claims relies on the same deficient finding discussed above in regard to independent claim 1. Final Act. 8, 14. Consequently, we similarly do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 6 and 18 and claims 7—12, 14—16, 19, and 20 depending therefrom. Remaining Rejections The Examiner does not rely on Koch, Diduck, or Ellis in any way that would cure the deficiency of Yane as discussed above. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 5, 13, and 17, for the same reasons. 5 Appeal 2015-005298 Application 13/667,314 DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20 are reversed. REVERSED 6