Ex Parte Pickering et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 2, 201511809584 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2015) 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. 11/809,584 06/01/2007 Michael A. Pickering 52518 9950 7590 02/03/2015 John J. Piskorski Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials LLC 455 Forest Street Marlborough, MA 01752 EXAMINER JAYNE, DARNELL M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3649 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/03/2015 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 MICHAEL A. PICKERING, JITENDRA S. GOELA, JAMIE L. TRIBA, and THOMAS PAYNE ____________ Appeal 2012-010352 Application 11/809,584 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before EDWARD A. BROWN, JAMES P. CALVE, and JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges. HILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Michael A. Pickering, et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1–6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2012-010352 Application 11/809,584 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Independent claim 1, reproduced below, represents the claimed subject matter. 1. An apparatus comprising a plurality of rods secured at opposite ends to respective endplates by joints having flanges with a fillet radius. REJECTION Claims 1–6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Payne (US Patent No. 6,811,040 B2, issued Nov. 2, 2004), Brandenburg (US Patent No. 6,378,538 B1, issued Apr. 30, 2002), and Manzon (US Patent Pub. No. 2006/0108795 A1, pub. May 25, 2006) or Manzon (US Patent No. 6,860,297 B2, issued Mar. 1, 2005). Ans. 5. OPINION Appellants argue claims 1–6 as a group. We select independent claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Claims 2–6 stand or fall with claim 1. The Examiner finds that Payne teaches a wafer holding apparatus comprising a plurality of rods 12 having tenons 22 secured to an inside face of respective end plates 14, but does not teach a fillet radius where the endplates join to the rods. Ans. 5. The Examiner finds that Brandenburg teaches a fillet radius joint where rods 60 join end plate 22, although the term “fillet radius” is not specifically used. Id. The Examiner then finds that the Manzon references teach that a fillet radius joint is desirable to prevent/deter joint corrosion, “illustrating that fillet radius joints are known in the mechanical arts.” Id. The Examiner notes that none of the pending claims “address why a fillet radius is particularly desirable,” and that the Appeal 2012-010352 Application 11/809,584 3 Manzon references are only being used for the specific use of the term “fillet radius joint” to illustrate that this term is known in the mechanical arts. Id. at 5–6. Appellants admit that “[t]he Figures of the Brandenburg et al. patent disclose what appears to be a fillet radius joint attaching the top end 60 of struts 16a-h to interior surface 22. . . .” Appeal Br. 10. Appellants argue, however, that Brandenburg is silent regarding “a fillet radius joint, let alone any advantage of such a joint,” because “there is no description in the specification as to the specific types of joints being employed or any advantage to such joints,” such that Brandenburg does not “teach or suggest addressing any type of problem by the structural form of a joint, let alone a fillet radius joint.” Id. Brandenburg shows, for example in the partial views of Figures 3 and 4, a rounded corner where struts (rods) 16 join endplate 14. Absent an explanation by Appellants regarding why Brandenburg’s rounded corner is not a fillet radius, we agree with the Examiner’s finding to that effect in view of Appellants’ disclosure of a fillet radius of similar configuration. See Spec. 5, ll. 7–8 (“A fillet radius r of arc shaped flange 10 of joint 20 of the semiconductor wafer holding apparatus is illustrated in Figure 1.”); Fig. 1. The fact that Brandenburg does not explicitly describe the term “fillet radius” does not preclude the Examiner from finding that the depicted rounded corner is a fillet radius. We are not persuaded by this argument. Appellants also argue that Payne and Brandenburg are not properly combinable because they are non-analogous art. Appeal Br. 10. According to Appellants, Payne and Brandenburg are not from the same field of endeavor, because Payne is directed to an apparatus for holding a wafer to Appeal 2012-010352 Application 11/809,584 4 be coated under harsh conditions, and Brandenburg is directed to an apparatus for holding a wafer for cleaning residue therefrom. Id. at 10–11. Appellants also contend that Payne addresses a different problem than Brandenburg, because Payne addresses the problem of holding a wafer during harsh conditions for coating, whereas Brandenburg is directed to holding a wafer during cleaning. Id. at 11. The Examiner responds that Payne and Brandenburg are in the same field of endeavor. Ans. 6. As admitted by Appellants, both Payne and Brandenburg are directed to holding a wafer. Even if Payne holds the wafer for coating and Brandenburg holds a wafer for cleaning, both references teach an apparatus for holding wafers and thus are within the same field of endeavor, and Appellants’ field of endeavor is also an apparatus for holding wafers. Appellants then argue that “[t]he Manzon documents do not make up for the deficiencies of Payne” and Brandenburg because the Examiner has not “designated the particular part of either Manzon document where a fillet radius joint is described and prevents or deters corrosion,” that there is no paragraph 18 of Manzon ’297, and that paragraph 18 of Manzon ’795 does not recite a fillet radius. Appeal Br. 12. Initially, the Examiner does not need to rely on the teaching of the Manzon references in order for the combination to meet all of the claimed limitations, because Brandenburg already teaches the claimed fillet radius as explained above. Additionally, the Examiner’s quoted disclosure is found at column 5, lines 31–40 of Manzon ’297. The Examiner’s erroneous citation does not change the fact that Manzon ’297 teaches a fillet radius, and Appellants were on notice of the entire teaching of Manzon ’297, not simply Appeal 2012-010352 Application 11/809,584 5 the teaching located at the Examiner’s (erroneous) pinpoint cite. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. For the reasons set forth above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection. DECISION We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1–6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Payne, Brandenburg, and the Manzon references. 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 hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation