Ex Parte BEHDJAT et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 19, 2019

14035829 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/035,829 09/24/2013 Mehran BEHDJAT
44257 7590 06/21/2019
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.
013375.COl/DISPLAY/AHRDWR 7338
EXAMINER
KEASEL, ERIC S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3753
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2019 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):
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 MEHRAN BEHDJAT, SHINICHI KURITA,
JOHN M. WHITE, SUHAIL ANWAR, and
MAKOTO INAGA WA
Appeal2017-010282
Application 14/03 5 ,829 1
Technology Center 3700
Before BRETT C. MARTIN, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection
of claims 1---6, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.
Claims 7-14 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The real party in interest is Applied Materials, Inc. ("Appellant"). Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal2017-010282
Application 14/035,829
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claims 1 and 3---6 are independent claims. Claim 4, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
4. A slit valve door, comprising:
a first body;
a second body that is separate from the first body and that
is movable relative to the first body, the second body having a
first surface and a second surface substantially perpendicular to
the first surface;
a bearing coupled between the first body and the second
body;
a first bellows coupled to the first body and the first
surface of the second body;
a second bellows coupled to the first body and the second
body, wherein an orientation of the second bellows is orthogonal
to an orientation of the first bellows; and
an 0-ring coupled to the second body.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1---6 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph as being indefinite.
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Nakagawa et al. (US 6,561,484 B2; May 13, 2003).
Claims 1-3 and 6 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious in view of Nakagawa alone or in view of the combined
teachings of Nakagawa and Sugisaki et al. (US 4,562,992; Jan. 7, 1986).
ANALYSIS
Indefiniteness - "Substantially Perpendicular"
In rejecting claims 1---6 as indefinite, the Examiner stated that the term
"substantially perpendicular" is a relative term that is not defined by the
2
Appeal2017-010282
Application 14/035,829
claims and not supported by a disclosure in the Specification that would
inform a person of ordinary skill of the scope of the claimed invention.
Non-final Act. 2-3; accord Ans. 3---6 (citing Spec. ,r,r 46, 47, 49, 58, 65,
Figs. 4B, 4D, 4E). Acknowledging Appellant's arguments that case law
from the Federal Circuit has interpreted "substantially" to "accommodate
minor variations" (Appeal Br. 8-9 (citing Verve, LLC. v. Crane Cams, Inc.,
311 F.3d 1116, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2002)), the Examiner responds that while
Verve applies in certain circumstances, here the Specification is at odds with
the holding in Verve and lacks guidance regarding how much deviation from
perpendicular would be permitted (Ans. 3--4).
We disagree with the Examiner, and we agree with Appellant that
"substantially perpendicular" is not indefinite in this case. See Appeal Br.
8-9 (citing Verve and paragraphs 46, 47, 49, 58, and 65 of the Specification
as examples of "substantially" used to accommodate minor variances).
Similar to the reasoning in Verve, use of "substantially perpendicular" does
not itself render the claims indefinite, and we determine that it is consistent
with the Specification to interpret substantially perpendicular to
accommodate minor variations from perpendicular. See Verve, 311 F.3d at
1120. Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the term "substantially
perpendicular" does not render claims 1---6 indefinite.
Indefiniteness - "Bearing"
The Examiner determined that the term "bearing" in claims 1--4 is
indefinite because, according to the Examiner, unlike the term "bearing
plate" in related US Patent No. 8.567,756, the term "bearing" is broader and
is unclear in terms of whether it requires some type of moving contact and/ or
3
Appeal2017-010282
Application 14/035,829
in terms of the actual "bearing" structures disclosed in the Specification.
Ans. 7; see Non-final Act. 3. Appellant argued, and we agree, that the term
"bearing" is generally understood to mean a machine part in which another
part slides, and we also agree with Appellant that element 514 in Appellant's
Figure 5B is an example of a "bearing," as claimed. See Appeal Br. 9.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the term "bearing" does not
render claims 1--4 indefinite.
Indefiniteness - "An Orientation"
The Examiner determined that, in claims 4---6, the term "an
orientation" is indefinite with its reference to the orientation of the claimed
first bellows and second bellows. Non-final Act. 3. Specifically, the
Examiner determined that "since bellows are often pleated and/or change
shape during use, 'an orientation' of the one bellows with respect to the
other would appear to be orthogonal ( or any other relative angle) in normal
operation of bellow," making it unclear what "orientation" means in that
context. Id.
Appellant argued, and we agree, that the term "an orientation" of the
bellows refers to the placement of the bellows in a particular position or
direction. See Reply Br. 3. In the context of claim 4, "an orientation" of the
second bellows is orthogonal to an orientation of the first bellows. Reading
the claim language in light of the Specification, we agree with Appellant that
a person of ordinary skill would understand the recited "orientations" to
refer to the relative positions of the first and second bellows, those positions
being orthogonal to each other. Accordingly, we agree with Appellant the
term "an orientation" does not render claims 1--4 indefinite.
4
Appeal2017-010282
Application 14/035,829
In summary, having considered the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-
6 as indefinite, we disagree with the Examiner and reverse the rejection of
claims 1---6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Anticipation
Responding to the Examiner's rejection of claims 4 and 5 as
anticipated by Nakagawa, Appellant argued Nakagawa does not disclose "an
orientation of the second bellows is orthogonal to an orientation of the first
bellows," as required by claims 4 and 5. Appeal Br. 12. With reference to
Nakagawa's Figure 5, the Examiner cites first bellows 13 and second
bellows 31, determining that "the orthogonal limitation is met during use"
because the first and second bellows are pleated and the angles of the pleats
vary during use. Non-final Act. 5. According to the Examiner, "[g]iven the
plural pleats and the number of surface structures on each bellows that have
orientations, Nakagawa meets the [orthogonal] limitation in numerous
configurations when considering the angles of the pleats." Ans. 9.
Nakagawa's Figure 5 is copied below.
5
Appeal2017-010282
Application 14/035,829
FIG. 5
Figure 5 of Nakagawa is a cross sectional view of a gate valve, depicting
expandable body 13 connecting valve plates 1 and IA. Nakagawa 3:24--28.
Figure 5 also depicts dustproof bellows 31 at the outer periphery of actuator
30.
Appellant argued, and we agree, that Nakagawa does not disclose first
and second bellows oriented orthogonal to one another. Appeal Br. 12.
Regardless of whether pleats of the bellows may at some time during use
have varying angles relative to the pleats of another bellow, claims 4 and 5
recite the orientations of the bellows themselves, not the pleats of the
bellows.
As shown in Nakagawa's Figure 5, bellows 13 and 31 connect valve
plates 1 and IA. As valve plates 1 and IA are parallel, the relative
orientation of bellows 13 and 31 is also substantially parallel, not
6
Appeal2017-010282
Application 14/035,829
orthogonal. Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred
in the rejection of claims 4 and 5 as anticipated by Nakagawa.
Obviousness
Regarding the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3 and 6, Appellant
argued Nakagawa fails to teach "a second body having a first surface and a
second surface substantially perpendicular to the first surface, a first bellows
coupled to the first body and the first surface of the second body," as
claimed. In the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1-3 and 6, the
Examiner cites valve plate IA as the first body and valve plate 1 as the
second body. Non-final Act. 5. As noted above, valve plates 1 and IA are
parallel, not perpendicular.
The Examiner further stated that the figures and specification of
Nakagawa "are not detailed enough to definitively show how the bellows are
attached to the first and second bodies," but, the Examiner reasoned that
"[ s ]ince there are only a finite number of manners of attaching bellows 13
and there is a reasonable expectation of success in any of the attachment
locations, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art
to have modified Nakagawa" to satisfy the claim. Id. at 6; accord Ans. 12.
The Examiner also stated "[a]ltematively and/or additionally," Sugisaki
discloses the claimed orientation with its bellows connecting two movable
parts in a similar gate valve. Id. at 6-7 (citing Sugisaki Fig. 4).
Figure 4 of Sugisaki is copied below.
7
Appeal2017-010282
Application 14/035,829
FIG. 4
Sugisaki' s Figure 4 depicts a longitudinal cross-sectional view showing
tension spring 15 and stopper 38 between inner and outer bellows 7, 8, with
the bellow spanning between annular member 10 and end wall 1 7. Sugisaki
3:6-8, 4:8-29, Fig. 4.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not established that
claims 1-3 and 6 would have been obvious. Notwithstanding the possibility
that a person of ordinary skill could have modified the structures of
Nakagawa and/or Sugisaki to satisfy the claim language, the Examiner has
not provided adequate reasoning or rationale to establish that it would have
been obvious for a person of ordinary skill to make such modifications. See
Non-final Act. 5-7; Ans. 11-12. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1-3 and 6.
8
Appeal2017-010282
Application 14/035,829
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1---6.
REVERSED
9