Lutz RebstockDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 14, 20212020003990 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 14, 2021) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/817,310 06/17/2010 Lutz Rebstock 1229P015331-US(PAR) 5277 106446 7590 06/14/2021 Perman & Green, LLP 99 Hawley Lane Stratford, CT 06614 EXAMINER CARRILLO, BIBI SHARIDAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1711 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/14/2021 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LUTZ REBSTOCK Appeal 2020-003990 Application 12/817,310 Technology Center 1700 Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 7–11, 19–21, 24, 27, 28, and 31–39. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Brooks Automation GmbH. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-003990 Application 12/817,310 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to methods of transferring articles between stations. See independent claims 7, 21, 24. The Specification teaches that articles such as a “Front Opening Unified Pod [FOUP]” are used to transport semiconductor components, e.g., wafers, during production. Spec. 1. The FOUPs “need[] to be cleaned occasionally to maintain the standard of cleanliness required in processing semiconductor wafers” and it may be necessary to clean a FOUP after each individual use to prevent cross-contamination between wafer loads. Id. The Specification expresses a desire to shorten the time needed to execute a cleaning cycle. Id. Independent claim 7, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 7. A method for transferring an article having multiple portions, the method comprising: moving the article, by a transfer mechanism, directly between a first station and a second station, wherein the multiple portions of the article are in an assembled configuration at the first station; and passing the article, supported on the transfer mechanism, past a member during the movement of the transfer mechanism, with the article supported thereon, from the first station to the second station through the member, wherein the member disassembles the multiple portions of the article supported on the transfer mechanism coincident with the passing of the transfer mechanism through the member, such that the member disassembles the multiple portions of the article on-the-fly during the article passing past the member; wherein the multiple portions are disposed in separate locations in the second station. Appeal 2020-003990 Application 12/817,310 3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Examiner rejects claims 7–11, 19–21, 24, 27, 28, and 31–39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of applicant admitted prior art2 (“AAPA”) and Miyamoto,3 with further evidence provided by Barker4. Final Act. 4–7.5 Specifically, the Examiner finds that AAPA discloses all the limitations recited in claims 7 and 21, except for the requirement that there be a single transfer mechanism, and that the article’s disassembly occurs “on-the-fly” during the article’s movement from the first station to the second station. Id. at 4–6. To address these differences between AAPA and claims 7 and 21, the Examiner turns to Miyamoto, which the Examiner finds discloses a single robot that performs multiple functions. Id. at 5. The Examiner reasons that using a single robot (i.e., transfer mechanism) would have provided a more cost effective and efficient process, thus motivating the skilled artisan to make that modification to AAPA. Id. The Examiner relies on the teachings of Barker to establish “that it was well known in the art to improve efficiency and throughput using robots for manipulation and handling of workpieces.” Id. The Examiner also finds that disassembling the article on-the-fly during movement to the second station would achieve the same result as disassembly after transfer to the second station. Id. at 6. The Examiner 2 Spec. 20:5–22; Figure 12. 3 Miyamoto, JP2005/109523 (A), published April 21, 2005. We rely on the uncontested English machine translation of record. 4 Barker, US 2009/0082895 A1, published March 26, 2009. 5 The Examiner’s written description rejection of claims 7–11, 19–21, 24, 27, 28, and 31–39 (Final Act. 2–3) is withdrawn and not before us. Ans. 6. Appeal 2020-003990 Application 12/817,310 4 determines that it would have been well within the level of the skilled artisan to have disassembled the article during movement (id.), and that “the skilled artisan would have recognized the benefits of performing a more efficient process by unlocking/disassembly during movement.” Ans. 7. Independent claim 24 does not recite disassembly of the article’s multiple portions on-the-fly between stations. Rather, claim 24 requires the article’s multiple portions to be locked together at the first station and, during transport to the second station, the article is stopped where a member unlocks the multiple portions. Appeal Br. (Claims App. 2–3). The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding independent claim 24 are set forth at pages 6 and 7 of the Final Office Action. OPINION We review the appealed rejection for reversible error based on the arguments and evidence presented by Appellant. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that even if the Examiner had failed to make a prima facie case, “it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”). We address the claims separately to the extent they are so argued by Appellant. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2020-003990 Application 12/817,310 5 Claims 7 and 21 Appellant’s arguments are set forth at pages 9–22 of the Appeal Brief.6 Because the arguments for claim 21 largely mirror those advanced for claim 7, our discussion of Appellant’s arguments applies equally to these claims and their dependent claims. Appellant begins by block-quoting the entirety of claim 7 and the relied-upon AAPA disclosure. Appeal Br. 9–10. Appellant then asserts that the AAPA “is simply silent with respect to the above-described features of” claim 7. Id. at 10. Appellant then contends there are “deficiencies of the AAPA.” Id. Appellant repeats this argument for claim 21. Id. at 18–19. Such vague assertions lack specificity and precision as to what claim limitations are purportedly missing from AAPA, and thus lack persuasive merit. 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.”). Appellant continues by reproducing portions of Miyamoto and then asserting that Miyamoto’s specific robot 3 does not have the capability of carrying out the methods of claims 7 and 21. Appeal Br. 10, 19. That argument is not persuasive because it does not address the underlying 6 We agree with the Examiner’s observation (Ans. 6) that Appellant’s arguments with respect to claim 21 are very similar to those set forth for claim 7. Compare, e.g., Appeal Br. 9 –10 (quoting claim 7 and AAPA), with id. at 18–19 (quoting claim 21 and AAPA); compare id. at 10, with id. at 19 (each asserting hindsight); compare id. at 11, with id. at 20 (each attacking Miyamoto’s disclosure individually); compare id. at 11–13, with id. at 20– 22 (each attacking Barker’s disclosure individually). Appeal 2020-003990 Application 12/817,310 6 rejection. Miyamoto was merely relied upon to evince that it was known in the art to have a single robot perform multiple functions. Final Act. 5. The Examiner did not propose a direct substitution of Miyamoto’s robot into AAPA’s method as Appellant’s argument suggests. Id. Appellant then asserts the evidentiary reference Barker does not remedy the deficiencies of AAPA and Miyamoto. Appeal Br. 11–13, 20–22. This line of argument is unpersuasive because it reflects a misunderstanding of the rejection that was made. See Final Act. 5 (relying on Barker as evidence that it was well known “to improve efficiency and throughput using robots for manipulation and handling of workpieces.”). In other words, the Examiner does not rely on Barker to teach specific elements of the claim. Rather, Barker is used in the rejection merely to establish well- known principles of efficiency in this art. We are furthermore unpersuaded by Appellant’s assertion that the Examiner relies on purported comments made by Appellant over eight years ago during prosecution in rejecting claim 7. Appeal Br. 14–15. We see no such reliance on this appeal record. See Final Act. 4–6 (detailing the basis for the rejection of claims 7 and 21, which does not include comments made during prosecution with respect to these claims). We also reject Appellant’s argument alleging error in the Examiner’s determination that disassembling an article during movement would have been more efficient. Compare Ans. 7, with Reply Br. 3. Although Appellant criticizes this determination as “merely conclusory,” Appellant does not explain how carrying out the disassembly step during transfer between stations would not necessarily eliminate a separate disassembly step once the article arrives at the second station. Reply Br. 3. In the absence of Appeal 2020-003990 Application 12/817,310 7 such an explanation, we discern no error in the Examiner’s conclusion that transferring and disassembling the article coextensively would be more efficient than performing these steps separately. Ans. 7. Appellant also advances an untimely argument in asserting that the Examiner failed to address items 4, 5, 6, 7A, 7B, or 7C of the Declaration.7 Reply Br. 5. Nowhere did Appellant make this argument in its principal Brief. See Appeal Br., generally. Rather, Appellant only referenced paragraphs 7B and 7C in its argument pertaining to the individual teachings of Miyamoto. Id. at 17. Even then, Appellant did not assert that paragraphs 7B and 7C of the Declaration were not properly considered. Id. Because this argument is not responsive to a statement raised in the Examiner’s Answer, and because Appellant has not shown good cause why this argument could not have been made in its Appeal Brief, we do not consider it for purposes of this present appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). Because Appellant has identified no reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 21, we sustain it, along with the rejection of claims 8–11, 19, 20, 27, 28, 31, 32, and 35–39 not separately argued. Claim 24 Appellant’s arguments regarding claim 24 likewise leave us unpersuaded of reversible error in the rejection of this claim because these arguments substantially repeat arguments provided for claims 7 and 21 and are unpersuasive for the reasons given supra. Appeal Br. 23–27. 7 Declaration by inventor Lutz Rebstock dated September 26, 2018. Appeal 2020-003990 Application 12/817,310 8 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed 7–11, 19– 21, 24, 27, 28, 31–39 103(a) AAPA, Miyamoto, Barker 7–11, 19– 21, 24, 27, 28, 31–39 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation