Ex Parte Mulligan et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 20, 201211545906 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2012) 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. 11/545,906 10/11/2006 William P. Mulligan 10031.001400 2528 74254 7590 11/20/2012 Okamoto & Benedicto LLP P.O. Box 641330 San Jose, CA 95164-1330 EXAMINER RUDAWITZ, JOSHUA I ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3652 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/20/2012 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 WILLIAM P. MULLIGAN and THOMAS PASS ____________ Appeal 2010-007890 Application 11/545,906 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before LINDA E. HORNER, JOHN C. KERINS and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-007890 Application 11/545,906 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE William P. Mulligan and Thomas Pass (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 14-20. Claims 1-13 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was conducted on November 8, 2012. We REVERSE. THE INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to an in-line, wafer conveying furnace. Independent claim 14 is illustrative: 14. An in-line furnace comprising: a continuous first conveyor configured to hold a plurality of wafers without using a removable wafer boat to contain the wafers, the first conveyor including integrated wafer retainers configured to secure each of the wafers at an angle relative to ground; and a chamber configured to thermally process the wafers as the first conveyor moves the wafers through the chamber. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner has rejected: (i) claims 14, 17, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Bishop (US 6,267,587 B1, issued Jul. 31, 2001); (ii) claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Bishop; and (iii) claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Bishop in view of Pan (US 2006/0246683 A1, published Nov. 2, 2006). Appeal 2010-007890 Application 11/545,906 3 ANALYSIS The Examiner cites to upward projections 103 disposed on carrier bars 96 in Bishop as meeting the limitations in claim 14 directed to a conveyor being capable of holding a plurality of wafers without using a removable wafer boat to contain the wafers, and providing integrated wafer retainers configured to secure each of the wafers at an angle relative to ground. Ans. 5. As to the latter of these, the Examiner takes the position that “an angle of zero meets this limitation,” and “an angle of 180 degrees, or any multiple thereof, is an angle larger than zero, and is additionally describing the situation where an object is flat, relative to a horizontal floor.”1 Ans. 3, 6. Appellants argue that an angle of zero is “the absence of an angle,” and that “zero, 180, and 360 degrees are all equivalent, which as applied to claim 14 mean the lack of an angle relative to ground.” Appeal Br. 7-8. Appellants also contend that the Examiner’s interpretation of this claim limitation as including an angle of zero is unreasonable, arbitrary, totally inconsistent with the Specification, and totally eliminates the limitation. Reply Br. 5. Appellants’ Specification evidences that the term “angle relative to the ground” is defined as being an angle greater than zero degrees. Spec., p. 4, ll. 20-23. The Specification further contrasts this orientation with that in which “wafers are laid horizontally flat on conveyors”, noting that the former “increases wafer density inside the chamber 110.” Spec., p. 6, ll. 13- 17. Accordingly, the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim limitation as 1 Although not expressly stated, it is assumed that the Examiner’s position is that the upward projections 103 of Bishop are capable of holding and securing wafers thereon in a horizontal (zero angle) orientation identical to that shown in Figure 12, which illustrates the holding of contact lens carriers 20. Appeal 2010-007890 Application 11/545,906 4 including an angle of zero degrees is unreasonably broad in light of what persons of ordinary skill in the art would understand from reading the Specification. We further agree with Appellants that an angle of 180 degrees, which is an angle greater than zero degrees, and multiples thereof, would be understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art in the context of Appellants’ Specification as being effectively the same angle “relative to ground” as is zero degrees. Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 14, 17, 19 and 20 over Bishop. The obviousness rejection of claims 15 and 16 over Bishop, and the obviousness rejection of claim 18 over Bishop and Pan, rely on the same erroneous interpretation of the Bishop patent as disclosing integrated wafer retainers configured to secure wafers at an angle relative to ground. As such, we are constrained to reverse these rejections as well. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in finding that the upward projections in Bishop, which are capable of holding wafers horizontally (at an angle relative to the ground of zero), meets the claim limitation requiring integrated wafer retainers configured to secure the wafers at an angle relative to the ground. DECISION The rejection of claims 14-20 is reversed. REVERSED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation