Ex Parte Müller

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 8, 2019

13419770 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/419,770 03/14/2012
78631 7590 03/12/2019
ROBERTS.GREEN
OERLIKON METCO (US) INC.
1101 PROSPECT A VENUE
WESTBURY, NY 11590
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Markus Muller
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.
P8027US 8369
EXAMINER
LEE,AIDENY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1718
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/12/2019 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):
ROBERT.GREEN@OERLIKON.COM
gbpatent@gbpatent.com
greenblum.bernsteinplc@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARKUS MULLER 1
Appeal2018-002002
Application 13/419,770
Technology Center 1700
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-11, 14, and 16-23. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a component manipulator for
the dynamic positioning of a substrate to be treated in a thermal treatment
process. E.g., Spec. 1; Claim 1. Claim 1 is reproduced below from page 40
(Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief:
1 According to the Appellant, the real party in interest is Oerlikon Metco
AG. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-002002
Application 13/419,770
1. A component manipulator for the dynamic positioning of a
substrate to be treated in a thermal treatment process,
compnsmg:
a main drive axle rotatable about a main rotary axis,
a ceramic connection element,
a substrate holder connectable to the ceramic connection
element via a connection segment of the substrate holder, and
a plug and rotate connection between the connection segment
and the ceramic connection element, whereby the connection
segment and connection element are connected in a pull
resistant and rotationally fixed manner with regard to a
connection axis (V), about which the substrate holder is
rotatable.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as follows:
1. Claims 1-10 and 21-23 over Ginovker (US 2002/0062791 Al,
published May 30, 2002), Kinder (US 6,294,025 Bl, issued Sept. 25, 2001),
and Mailho (US 6,118,100, issued Sept. 12, 2000);
2. Claims 11 and 16 over Ginovker, Kinder, Mailho, Scheuermann
(US 4,108,107, issued Aug. 22, 1978), Weeks (US 2005/0166849 Al,
published Aug. 4, 2005), and Toland (US 2,885,959, issued May 12, 1959);
3. Claims 14 and 18-20 over Ginovker, Kinder, Mailho, and Damani
(US 2009/0136781 Al, published May 28, 2009);
4. Claim 17 over Ginovker, Kinder, Mailho, and Schumaker
(US 4,969,416, issued Nov. 13, 1990).
ANALYSIS
After review of the cited evidence in the appeal record and the
opposing positions of the Appellant and the Examiner, we determine that the
2
Appeal2018-002002
Application 13/419,770
Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner's rejections.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejections for reasons set forth below, in the
Final Action, and in the Examiner's Answer. See generally Final Act. 2-25;
Ans. 2-25.
Rejection 1
As to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Ginovker teaches a component
manipulator for the dynamic positioning of a substrate to be treated in a
thermal process that comprises each element of claim 1 except that
(1) Ginovker does not specify that its connection element is ceramic, and
(2) Ginovker does not teach a plug and rotate connection between its
connection segment and connection element. Ans. 5-6. With reference to
Figures 8c and 14--19 of Ginovker, the Examiner finds that Ginovker
discloses main rotary axis 50 (Fig. 8c) about which a main drive axle 160
(Figs. 14, 19) rotates, connection element 136 (Fig. 16), and a substrate
holder (see Fig. 13a depicting, inter alia, substrates 4) connectable to the
connection element via connection segment 32 (see Fig. 13a; base of stem
32 connects to slot in top of connection element 136 of Fig. 16). Ans. 5.
As to ( 1) a ceramic connection element, the Examiner finds that
Kinder discloses a similar apparatus and teaches that "some components,
especially in heated zones of the apparatus, can be made entirely or partially
of high grade steel, high temperature steel such as INCONEL, for example,
and/or ceramic." Id. at 6. The Examiner determines that it would have been
obvious to have used a ceramic material as the connection element 136 of
Ginovker "for the purpose of low thermal conductivity and/or thermal
expansion ... and/or providing a tool holder at elevated temperatures with
enhanced capacity and reliability." Id.
3
Appeal2018-002002
Application 13/419,770
As to (2) a plug and rotate connection between the connection
segment 32 and the connection element 136, the Examiner finds that Mailho
discloses a similar apparatus utilizing a plug and rotate connection between
similar elements. Id. The Examiner determines that it would have been
obvious to have incorporated the connection mechanism of Mailho into
Ginovker "for the purpose of allowing [the] advantage of easy susceptor and
rod assembly removal and disassembly for cleaning and servicing, then
being easily reassembled and replaced for further use." Id. at 6-7.
In view of those findings, the Examiner determines that the subject
matter of claim 1 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art. Id. at 5-7.
The Appellant argues, with reference to Ginovker Fig. 20, that
Ginovker expressly uses the words "substrate holder" to describe a particular
element (12) of its component manipulator, and that, because Ginovker does
not use the words "substrate holder" to describe the element that the
Examiner's has relied on as a "substrate holder," see Ginovker Fig. 13a, the
element relied on by the Examiner cannot reasonably be described as a
"substrate holder." E.g., App. Br. 11-13.
That argument is not persuasive. As the Examiner explains in the
Answer, Ans. 14, the Appellant's argument takes too narrow a view of the
disclosure ofGinovker. Cf, e.g., In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832-33 (Fed.
Cir. 1990) ( whether reference discloses claim element "is not an ipsissimis
verbis test" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Figure 13a of Ginovker,
which the Examiner relies on as disclosing a substrate holder, literally
depicts an apparatus on which substrates 4 are placed. See Ginovker
Fig. 13a. The Examiner identifies element 32 of Fig. 13a, which connects to
4
Appeal2018-002002
Application 13/419,770
the slot of element 136 of Fig. 16, as the connection segment of the substrate
holder. See Ans. 5-6. Particularly in view of claim interpretation standard
applicable to this proceeding (broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification), we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's
determination that Fig. 13a discloses a substrate holder with connection
segment 32 merely because Ginovker uses the words "substrate holder" to
describe a different aspect ( element 12) of its disclosure.
The Appellant also argues that the Examiner does not adequately
establish that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated
to use ceramic as the material for connection element 136 of Fig. 16. App.
Br. 13-16. In particular, the Appellant argues that the disclosure in
Ginovker ,r 89 of steel or Inconel components does not apply to element 136
of Fig. 16, and, that even if it did, ,r 89 indicates that the components must
be electrically conductive and ceramic is not electrically conductive. App.
Br. 13-16. According to the Appellant, Kinder's disclosure of steel,
Inconel, and/or ceramic materials would not have motivated a person of
ordinary skill to replace Ginovker' s steel or Inconel components with
Kinder's ceramic components. Id.
That argument is not persuasive because, as the Examiner explains in
the Answer, the Examiner is not proposing the replacement of Ginovker' s
steel or Inconel components with ceramic. See Ans. 18-19. Rather, the
Examiner finds that Ginovker does not expressly teach the material of
shaft 13 6, but that Kinder discloses the desirability of materials having low
thermal conductivity and/or expansion in apparatuses similar to that of
Ginovker. Ans. 6. The Examiner proposes the use of a ceramic material for
shaft 136 to achieve the low thermal conductivity and/or expansion indicated
5
Appeal2018-002002
Application 13/419,770
as desirable by Kinder. Id. The Appellant's argument does not persuasively
address or otherwise establish reversible error in that rationale.
Because the Appellant does not identify any disclosure in Ginovker
that shaft 136 must be electrically conductive, the Appellant's arguments
concerning electrical conductivity are not persuasive. See App. Br. 13-16.
Even if shaft 136 were required to be electrically conductive, however, the
Examiner in the Answer explains that electrically conductive ceramics are
known in the art and would have been obvious in view ofKinder's
disclosure. See Ans. 20 ( quoting several references including US 5,242,500
("All vessels are made of an electrically conductive, ceramic material")).
The fact that Kinder itself does not explicitly describe conductive ceramics,
see Reply Br. 7, does not establish error in the Examiner's findings that
conductive ceramics were known in the art and that Kinder' s broad
disclosure of ceramic materials encompasses both conductive and
nonconductive ceramics.
The Appellant also argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would not have been motivated to replace the pin-slot connection by which
element 32 (see Ginovker Fig. 13a) connects to element 136 (see Ginovker
Fig. 16) with a plug and rotate connection. App. Br. 16-18.
That argument is not persuasive because it relies on the argument
discussed and rejected above, i.e., that element 32 of Ginovker Fig. 13a is
not part of Ginovker's "substrate holder." See App. Br. 16. The Appellant
also asserts that the proposed modification would inhibit substrate holder 12
from rotating. See App. Br. 17. However, as discussed above, the Examiner
relies on Fig. 13a as disclosing a substrate holder, and the Appellant does not
persuasively show that, in the modification proposed by the Examiner,
6
Appeal2018-002002
Application 13/419,770
rotation would be inhibited. See App. Br. 17. Mailho describes its structure
as being capable of rotation. E.g., Mailho at 2:35-38 ("According to the
present invention, a susceptor and rod assembly is provided which includes a
susceptor portion and a rod portion, which rotates the susceptor portion."),
2:66-67 ("The plug fits into the end of a rotatable quartz rod and within an
upper quartz tube.").
On this record, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
As to claims 2-8, 10, and 21-23, the Appellant includes separate
paragraphs in the Appeal Brief for each of those claims, but the arguments
are either repetitive of the arguments discussed above concerning claim 1, or
they are essentially naked assertions that the prior art does not teach or
suggest certain claim limitations without meaningfully addressing the
Examiner's specific findings and conclusions concerning those limitations.
See App. Br. 19-26. Those arguments are not persuasive. See In re Jung,
637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[I]t has long been the Board's
practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's
rejections .... "); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[T]he
Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive
arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and
a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the
prior art."). We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-8, 10, and 21-
23.
As to claim 9, which requires that "cooling fluid is suppliable to the
ceramic connection element and to the connection segment of the substrate
holder," the Examiner relies on Ginovker' s disclosure of "cooling means
7
Appeal2018-002002
Application 13/419,770
such as water [that] travels up through the hub 134 and flows outwardly
through channels 13 2." Ans. 7 ( discussing claim 3, from which claim 9
depends). The Appellant appears to argue that cooling fluid could not be
supplied to Ginovker's connection segment 32 because connection segment
32 is physically detached (i.e., "non-connectable") from channels 132. App.
Br. 23. That argument is not persuasive because it does not acknowledge,
address, or otherwise show error in the Examiner's interpretation of claim 9
as encompassing "indirect cooling" where "indirect contact" of apparatus
components with cooling fluid falls within the scope of the claim. See
Ans. 3 ( citing Spec. 19 for disclosure of cooling via "indirect contact with
the cooling fluid"); see also Final Act. 4--5 (providing same interpretation).
On this record, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection. See
Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365.
Rejections 2--4
The Appellant includes separate sections in the Appeal Brief for
Rejections 2--4, but the arguments are either repetitive of the arguments
discussed above, or they are essentially naked assertions that the prior art
does not teach or suggest certain claim limitations without meaningfully
addressing the Examiner's specific findings and conclusions concerning
those limitations. See App. Br. 26--40. Those arguments are not persuasive.
See Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365; Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. On this record, we
affirm the Examiner's rejection of the claims subject to Rejections 2--4.
8
Appeal2018-002002
Application 13/419,770
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-11, 14, and 16-
23.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
9