Ex Parte Madsen et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 9, 2019

15097600 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 9, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/097,600 04/13/2016
91286 7590 07/11/2019
Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (Lam)
P.O. Box 828
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Eric Russell Madsen
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
3968-lUS 3113
EXAMINER
KIM, CHRISTOPHER S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/11/2019 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):
sstevens@hdp.com
troymailroom@hdp.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC RUSSELL MADSEN and LANCE DYRDAHL
Appeal2018-007978
Application 15/097,600
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 7. 1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Although rejected in the Final Action, a number of the claims are no longer
rejected due to a rejection being withdrawn in the Answer. Ans. 4
(explaining that "claims 8-17 are allowable").
Appeal2018-007978
Application 15/097,600
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal. Claims 2, 3, and 7
depend from claim 1. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A baffle plate assembly comprising:
a baffle plate having an outer diameter and configured to
receive gases from a stem of a showerhead assembly and
distribute the gases through a showerhead of the showerhead
assembly of a substrate processing system;
a ring having an inner diameter and configured to be
disposed in a ring channel of the showerhead assembly,
wherein the inner diameter is greater than the outer diameter of
the baffle plate; and
a plurality of support members extending from the
baffle plate to the ring,
wherein the ring and the plurality of support
members are configured to hold the baffle plate in a position
between a top plate and a bottom plate of the showerhead.
REJECTIONS
1. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b ), as being indefinite. 2
2. Claims 1, 2, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as
being anticipated by Gullaksen (US 3,831,860, issued Aug. 27, 1974).
3. Claims 1, 2, and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as
being anticipated by Maas (US 5,397,060, issued Mar. 14, 1995).
OPINION
Indefiniteness
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites that "the baffle plate
comprises a plurality of holes through which portions of the gases pass."
2 The rejection of claims 2 and 8-17 on this basis was withdrawn in the
Answer. Ans. 4.
2
Appeal2018-007978
Application 15/097,600
The rejection of claim 3 is based on the Examiner's determination that "[t]he
body of the claim exceeds the scope of the preamble" because "[t]he
preamble is directed to a subcombination of a baffle plate assembly, but the
body of the claim is directed to a combination of a baffle plate assembly and
a shower head assembly of a substrate processing system." Final Act. 3. In
the Answer, the Examiner further explains that "[c]laim 3 positively requires
the portions of the gases to pass through the plurality of holes" and "[t]he
gases, as defined by claim 1, [are] an element of the showerhead assembly
because the gases are 'from a stem of a showerhead assembly."' Ans. 5.
Appellant disputes the rejection, explaining, for example, that "the
gases are not a structural component of the baffle plate assembly." Appeal
Br. 7. Appellant has the better position. Neither claim 1 nor claim 3
positively requires "gases," as the Examiner asserts. Rather, claim 1 simply
requires "a baffle plate ... configured to receive gases ... and distribute
gases." Similarly, claim 3 simply requires that the "plurality of holes" in the
baffle plate of claim 1 allows for the passage of gases therethrough. Hence,
the limitations directed to "gases" in claims 1 and 3 are functional
limitations of the claimed baffle plate.
The Examiner fails to provide sufficient basis for the rejection of
claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejection.
Anticipation-Gullaksen
The Examiner finds that Gullaksen discloses each element recited in
claim 1. Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner provides an annotated version of
Gullaksen's Figure 6 in the Answer illustrating the mapping of the claim
elements to Gullaksen's device. Ans. 8.
3
Appeal2018-007978
Application 15/097,600
The Examiner's annotated version of Gullaksen's Figure 6 is
reproduced below.
Figure 6 of Gullaksen is a perspective view of "a plate member or disk 40
having ... a plurality of apertures 42 therethrough." Gullaksen, 2:20-22.
Gullaksen "relates to shower heads, and more particularly relates to a
shower head having a restricted flow capacity for water conservation
purposes." Id. at 1 :3-5. Plate member 40 is provided "[i]n order to convert
the flow of water ... into a plurality of discrete jets." Id. at 2:17-19.
Claim 1 recites that the "baffle plate ... [is] configured to receive
gases ... and distribute the gases." As seen above, the Examiner partitions
plate 40 into different regions in order to meet the limitations recited in
claim 1. Appellant contends, for example, that although the Examiner
"refers to the central area of the disk 40 of Gullaksen as being a baffle plate
... the central area of the disk 40 is simply a circular plate that does not
include perforations and is not designed to restrict, distribute and direct flow
of gases." Appeal Br. 11-12. Appellant explains that the disclosed "baffle
plate includes one or more perforations and/or other flow restricting
4
Appeal2018-007978
Application 15/097,600
elements," but "the central portion of the disk 40 does not include any holes
and does not permit gas flow therethrough." Id. at 12.
The Examiner responds that "[t]he recitation 'configure[d] to' merely
requires the baffle plate to possess some undefined characteristic which
gives the baffle plate the capability to receive gases from a stem of a
showerhead assembly and distribute the gases through a showerhead of a
substrate processing system." Ans. 9-10. The Examiner explains that "[t]he
solid central circular area of disk 40 within the circular boundary defined by
apertures 42 inherently has the capability to deflect any fluid flowing to it"
and "[t]he flow is deflected from this central area such that the flow is
directed to apertures 42." Id. at 10.
Appellant has the better position. The recitation of the phrase
"configured to" requires more than "mere capability." Rather, that term is
synonymous with "made to" and "designed to." See In re Giannelli, 739
F.3d 1375, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2014). This is consistent with the
Specification, which repeatedly emphasizes the features of the "baffle plate"
being used to distribute gas, including providing for the passage of gas
therethrough. See, e.g., Spec. ,r,r 3 9--41. Thus, the claim requires a "baffle
plate" that is designed to receive and distribute gases, which requires
structure that allows for passage of the gases through the baffle plate in order
to "receive" the gases.
For at least these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision
to reject claims 1, 2, and 7 as anticipated by Gullaksen.
Anticipation-Maas
The Examiner finds that Maas discloses each element recited in
claim 1. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that the combination of cylinder
5
Appeal2018-007978
Application 15/097,600
118 and perforated wall 132 correspond to the "baffle plate," the
combination of cylindrical body 96 and annular flange 98 correspond to the
"ring"," and webbings 111-113 correspond to the "support member[s]." Id.
Figures 3, 7, and 8 of Maas are reproduced below.
140
123
7
FJG .. 3
l
126 92
8
4, ...... --l-.
l
!
26
9.
·-r-···· ...
71
91
61 l 81 24
(
54
Figure 3 is an exploded perspective view of a nozzle assembly.
6
10
......... ,, ...... 4
~
Appeal2018-007978
Application 15/097,600
FIG. 7
Figure 7 is a front view of the barrel of the nozzle assembly and Figure 8 is a
rear view of the barrel of the nozzle assembly.
Appellant contends, for example, that "[t]he short inner cylinder 118
and the perforated wall 132 are not in combination a baffle plate." Appeal
Br. 15. Appellant explains that "[t]he webbings 111-113 extend from the
short inner cylinder 118 to the annular body 96" and, "[i]n contrast, the
claimed support member extends from the baffle plate to the ring." Id. at 16.
We agree.
Although perforated wall 132, itself, may reasonably be considered a
"baffle plate," we do not agree, and the Examiner provides no persuasive
basis, that cylinder 118 is a "plate." Accordingly, the Examiner has failed to
establish that the combination of perforated wall 132 and cylinder 118 in
Maas constitutes the "plate" recited in claim 1.
Moreover, to the extent perforated wall 132, itself, is considered the
recited "plate," the rejection still fails. Maas explains that "webbings 111-
113 extend[] ... from the short inner cylinder 118 to ... the cylindrical body
96," not from perforated wall 132 to cylindrical body 96. Maas, 4:5-9. The
7
Appeal2018-007978
Application 15/097,600
claim requires that the "support members extend[] from the baffle plate to
the ring." This does not allow for some intervening structure, such as a
cylinder, to be disposed between the baffle plate and the support members,
which is consistent with each example provided in Appellant's
Specification. See, e.g., Spec. ,r 40, Fig. 5. Accordingly, because webbings
111-113 extend from cylinder 118, rather than perforated wall 132, Maas
does not disclose the recited "plate" on this basis either.
For at least these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision
to reject claims 1, 2, and 3 as anticipated by Maas.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 3, and 7.
REVERSED
8