Ex Parte Madsen et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 9, 201915097600 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 9, 2019) Copy Citation 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1 Although rejected in the Final Action, a number of the claims are no longer rejected due to a rejection being withdrawn in the Answer.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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation