Ex Parte Newman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2016

13486960 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/486,960 06/01/2012 Jacob Newman
44257 7590 04/28/2016
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP- - Applied Materials
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
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.
013453.Dl/FEP/RTP/PJT 7900
EXAMINER
KITT, STEPHEN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1717
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2016 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 JACOB NEWMAN, DINESH KANA WADE,
MIRIAM SCHWARTZ, NIR MERRY, and MICHAEL THOMAS HAAG
Appeal2014-005950
Application 13/486,960
Technology Center 1700
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1-12. An oral hearing was held on April 14,
2015. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (emphasis added):
1. A system for substrate processing equipment, comprising:
a first single-substrate, multi-chamber processing platform having a
first side and a second side with a central service corridor having a floor
1 The real party in interest is stated to be Applied Materials, Inc. App. Br.
3.
Appeal2014-005950
Application 13/486,960
and a length extending the width of the platform from the first side of the
first platform to the second side of the first platform and has a width of at
least about 36 inches; and
a second single-substrate, multi-chamber processing platform having a
first side and a second side with a central service corridor having a floor
and a length extending the width of the platform from the first side of the
second platform to the second side of the second platform and has a width of
at least about 3 6 inches,
wherein the first and second platforms each have a rear service
corridor having a length extending from a rear of the platform and
intersecting the central service corridor, and
wherein the second side of the first plaiform is adjacent the first side
of the second plaiform thereby eliminating a side access area disposed
between the first and second plaiform, and the central service corridor of the
first plaiform is substantially aligned with the central service corridor of the
second plaiform thereby forming a continuous service corridor through the
adjacent aligned first and second plaiforms.
The Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a):
(a) Claims 1 and 7 as unpatentable over AAPA (Spec. Figs. 1, 2, and 5
and related description); and
(b) Claims 1-12 as unpatentable over the combined prior art of AAP A
and Daw (US 4,667,579, issued May 26, 1987).
Appellants argue the claims as a group, and focus on limitations
common to independent claims 1 and 7 (App. Br. generally). Accordingly,
all the claims stand or fall with their respective independent claim. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii) (2011).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
"[R ]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
2
Appeal2014-005950
Application 13/486,960
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness." In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), quoted with
approval in KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and
the Examiner, we conclude that the preponderance of the evidence supports
Appellants' position that the Examiner has not met the burden in this case
for substantially the reasons set forth by Appellants in the Briefs.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejections of all the claims on
appeal.
We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Independent Claims 1 and 7
"[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." In re Translogic
Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). See also In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The scope of the claims in
patent applications is not determined solely on the basis of the claim
language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction in
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in
the art.); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
("[T]he specification 'is always highly relevant to the claim construction
analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning
of a disputed term."' (Internal citation omitted)).
Appellants point out their Specification explicitly details that a central
service corridor, as well as a rear service corridor, must be large enough to
3
Appeal2014-005950
Application 13/486,960
provide access for service carts (App. Br. 8, 9; Spec. il 30 ("large carts and
equipment may be transported" via the corridors)). Appellants also provide
evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
service corridors must be unobstructed (App. Br. 9 discussing the
International Building Code; Reply Br. 2--4 ). Appellants also contrast the
AAP A Fig. 1, 2 with their invention (Spec. generally). Accordingly, we
agree with Appellants that the broadest reasonable interpretation of "central
service corridor" consistent with their Specification does not encompass the
partially obstructed limited space between the processing chambers and
power supplies in AAP A Fig. 1. We also agree that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of "adjacent" as limited by "eliminating a side access area"
and "forming a continuous service corridor" means that the platforms share a
common boundary and abut one another as depicted in Appellants' Fig. 6
(App. Br. 1 O; Reply Br. 5). 2
Furthermore, a preponderance of the evidence supports Appellants'
position that the Examiner is using impermissible hindsight to space apart
the power supplies of AAP A so as to result in a rear service corridor as
claimed (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 4). The fact finder must be aware "of the
distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant
upon ex post reasoning." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (citing Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 36 (1966) (warning against a "temptation to read into
the prior art the teachings of the invention in issue")).
2 Appellants' representative confirmed at the oral hearing that the claimed
term "adjacent" in context of the entire clause requires the platforms to share
a common boundary, i.e., to abut one another.
4
Appeal2014-005950
Application 13/486,960
The Examiner does not adequately explain how Daw cures these
deficiencies of AAP A (e.g., App. Br. 10, 11; Reply Br. 6).
Accordingly, we reverse the rejections of claims 1-12 which all rely
upon the Examiner's flawed interpretation of the claim language, and
impermissible hindsight to reconstruct the admitted prior art.
A preponderance of the evidence on this record supports the
Appellants' position that the Examiner has not established that the applied
prior art teaches or suggests the arrangement of a central and rear service
corridors as required by all the claims on appeal.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner's § 103 rejections of all the claims on appeal are
reversed.
REVERSED
5