Ex Parte TSCHINDERLE et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 30, 2018

13228980 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/228,980 09/09/2011 91286 7590 12/04/2018 Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (Lam) P.O. Box 828 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303 UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Ulrich TSCHINDERLE 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. V0288-US 8625 EXAMINER ANTOLIN, STANISLAV ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1716 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/04/2018 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 ULRICH TSCHINDERLE, ANDREAS GLEISSNER, THOMAS WIRNSBERGER, and RAINER OB\iVEGER, 1 Appeal2017---006791 Application 13/228,980 Technology Center 1700 Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, and CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY Administrative Patent Judges. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants identify Lam Research AG as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal2017---006791 Application 13/228,980 Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claim 1 below is illustrative of Appellants' subject matter on appeal and is set forth below (with text in bold for emphasis): 1. Device for processing wafer-shaped articles, comprising an outer process chamber, said outer process chamber comprising a housing providing a gas-tight enclosure, a rotary chuck located within said outer process chamber, said rotary chuck being adapted to hold a wafer shaped article thereon, an interior cover disposed within said outer process chamber, said interior cover being movable relative to said outer process chamber between a first position in which said interior cover does not seal against an inner surface of said outer process chamber adjacent said rotary chuck, and a second position in which said interior cover seals against an inner surface of said outer process chamber adjacent said rotary chuck to define a gas-tight inner process chamber, and at least one process liquid collector formed in a lower portion of said interior cover, said process liquid collector communicating with a discharge pipe depending from said interior cover. (App. Br. 8.) 2 Appeal2017---006791 Application 13/228,980 The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence of unpatentability: Schoeb et al. 6,100,618 ("Schoeb '618") Siefering et al. 6,221,781 Bl ("Siefering '781 ") Toshima et al. 2002/0096196 Al ("Toshima '196") Orii et al. 2003/0010671 Al ("Orii '6 71 ") Lubomirsky et al. 2005/0260345 Al ("Lubomirsky '345") Schoeb 2011/0240220 Al ("Schoeb '220") Obweger et al. 5,845,204 B2 ("Obweger") THE REJECTIONS Aug. 8,2000 Apr. 24, 2001 July 25, 2002 Jan, 16,2003 Nov. 24, 2005 Oct. 6, 2011 July 16, 2013 1. Claims 1-9 and 14 are rejected under pre-AIA 37 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Orii '671 in view of Siefering '781 and Toshima '196. Non-Final Act. 4--14. 2. Claims 10-13 are rejected under pre-AIA 37 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Orii '671, Siefering '781, Toshima '196 as applied to claims 1-9 and 14 above, and further in view of Schoeb '220 ( citing Schoeb '618). Non-Final Act. 14--18. 3. Claim 15 is rejected under pre-AIA 37 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Orii '671 in view of Siefering '781, as applied to claims 3 Appeal2017---006791 Application 13/228,980 1-9 and 14 above, and further in view of Lubomirsky '345 and Toshima '196. Non-Final Act. 18-20. 4. Claims 16-18 are rejected under pre-AIA 37 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Orii '671 in view of Siefering '781 and Schoeb '220 (citing US Schoeb '618). Non-Final Act. 20-27. 5. Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of Obweger '204 in view ofOrii '671, Siefering '781 and Toshima '196. Non-Final Act. 28-33. 6. Claims 16-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of Obweger '204 in view ofOrii '671 and Siefering '781, and Toshima '196. Non-Final Act. 34--38. ANALYSIS Upon consideration of the evidence and each of the respective positions set forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of evidence supports Appellants' position in the record. We thus reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 for the reasons provided by Appellants in the record, and add the following for emphasis. The Examiner's findings pertaining to the reference of Orii '6 71 are dispositive for each rejection in the instant appeal. We therefore focus on the teachings of Orii "671. It is the Examiner's position that Orii '671 teaches the claimed element of "said interior cover seals against an inner surface of said outer process chamber". 4 Appeal2017---006791 Application 13/228,980 The Examiner sets forth an annotated figure of Orii '671 's Figure 5 on page 10 of the Answer in this regard. However, we agree with Appellants that the annotation of an inner surface of outer process chamber made by the Examiner in the figure on page 10 of the Answer is incorrect because that area is not a process area according to Orii '671. Reply Br. 5. Furthermore, we add that the claim requires that the interior cover "seals against an inner surface of the outer process chamber", and nowhere in Orii '671 's Figure 5 is such a seal made. The other applied references in Rejection 1, and in the other rejections, were not relied upon by the Examiner to cure this deficiency of Orii '671. We thus reverse each rejection for the same reason. DECISION Each rejection is reversed. REVERSED 5