Bartlett, Allen J. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 30, 2020

12008985 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2020)

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.
12/008,985 01/15/2008 Allen J. Bartlett 0100 2181-002 2567
21005 7590 01/30/2020
HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C.
530 VIRGINIA ROAD
P.O. BOX 9133
CONCORD, MA 01742-9133
EXAMINER
PETTITT, JOHN F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/30/2020 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):
docketing.department@hbsr.com
helpdesk@hbsr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALLEN J. BARTLETT, MICHAEL A. DRISCOLL,
MICHAEL J. EACOBACCI JR., WILLIAM L. JOHNSON,
ROBERT P. SULLIVAN, SERGEI SYSSOEV,
MARK A. STIRA, and JOHN J. CASELLO
Appeal 2019-001638
Application 12/008,985
Technology Center 3700
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4, 14, 60–62, 64, 65, and 67.2 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

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,
Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 2, 3, 5–13, 15–59, 66, and 68–70 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 18–20
(Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-001638
Application 12/008,985

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a cryopump including a housing with a
drain hole covered by a baffle that directs gases traversing through the drain
hole away from non-primary second stage condensing surfaces. Spec. 4:11–
24.
Claim 14, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
14. A cryopump comprising:
a vacuum vessel;
a refrigerator having at least a first stage and a second
stage;
a radiation shield mounted within the vacuum vessel and
enclosing second stage cryopumping surfaces, the radiation
shield and the second stage cryopumping surfaces configured to
be cooled by the refrigerator of the cryopump, the radiation
shield comprising:
a housing including a primary opening, an end
opposite the primary opening, and a lateral side wall
connected to the end, a frontal array being across the
primary opening and the housing having an inner surface
facing the second stage cryopumping surfaces and having
an interior volume sufficient to hold the second stage
cryopumping surfaces, the second stage cryopumping
surfaces including primary second stage condensing
surfaces and non-primary second stage condensing
surfaces;
a drain hole located in a center region of the end of
the housing to permit cryogenic liquid and gas to traverse
therethrough during a regeneration operation, the drain
hole providing for fluid communication between the
interior volume of the housing and an annular space
between the vacuum vessel and the radiation shield; and
a baffle: (a) directly connected to the inner surface
of the end of the radiation shield housing to extend across
the drain hole and to cover the drain hole, wherein the
Appeal 2019-001638
Application 12/008,985

3
baffle and the inner surface of the end of the radiation
shield housing define a channel having two ends, the drain
hole being in fluid communication with the channel at a
location between the two ends and (b) configured to direct
gases traversing through the drain hole away from the non-
primary second stage condensing surfaces.
Appeal Br. 18–19 (Claims App.).

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Bergquist US 4,785,666 Nov. 22, 1988
Bartlett US 5,156,007 Oct. 20, 1992
Schlenga US 2007/0022761 A1 Feb. 1, 2007

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 4, 14, 60–62, 64, 65, and 67 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bartlett and Schlenga.
II. Claims 1, 4, 14, 60, 62, 64, and 653 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bartlett and Bergquist.

3 The heading for this rejection lists claim 66, but not claim 65, as included
in the rejection. Final Act. 8. As claim 66 has been cancelled, and the body
of the rejection addresses the elements recited in claim 65, we understand
this to be a typographical error and that the rejection includes claim 65.
Appeal 2019-001638
Application 12/008,985

4
OPINION
Rejection I–Bartlett and Schlenga
The Examiner finds that Bartlett discloses many of the elements
recited in claim 14, but does not disclose a baffle that meets the location and
functional requirements recited in the last clause of the claim. Final Act. 3–
4. Addressing this deficiency, the Examiner finds that Schlenga teaches a
baffle (splash protection surface 33) directly connected to an inner surface of
a cryogenic housing and extending across a hole (entry of refrigerator space
4). Id. at 4; see also Schlenga, Fig. 3. The Examiner reasons that modifying
the cryopump of Bartlett to include the baffle disclosed by Schlenga, in the
location recited in claim 14, would (i) provide improved radiation shielding
of the inside of the cryopump and (ii) provide control of a flow of gas
therethrough. Id. (citing Schlenga ¶ 22).
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reasoning is not supported by
rational underpinnings because Bartlett merely discloses an uncovered hole
in the bottom of its radiation shield, and a person of ordinary skill in the art
would not have had any reason to implement Schlenga’s splash protection
surface as a cover for this hole. See Appeal Br. 11–12. Appellant contends
that there is no reason to provide additional radiation shielding to Bartlett’s
existing radiation shield (which includes the hole the Examiner proposes to
cover with a baffle). In this regard, Appellant notes that there is no
indication that the hole in Bartlett’s radiation shield poses a problem, and, in
fact, Schlenga leaves openings in various parts of its own radiation shields.
Id. at 12 (citing Schlenga, Figs. 1, 3). As to the Examiner’s second rationale
for the proposed modification, the control of gas flow, Appellant asserts this
comes only “from inventors’ discovery that the prior art drain hole
Appeal 2019-001638
Application 12/008,985

5
contributed to gas condensation on undesirable surfaces of the secondary
array,” and, therefore, is based on impermissible hindsight. Id.
In response, the Examiner finds the systems in Bartlett and Schlenga
are similar, stating:
The context of Schlenga is directly applicable because the
problem of preventing thermal heat leak through an opening in a
cryogenic container and also of redirecting of straight through
flows through the opening is extremely similar thermally and
mechanically to the context of Bartlett where there is an opening
in a cryogenic enclosure structure that permits thermal radiation
from a warmer exterior into a colder interior and has occasional
undesired flows therethrough.
Ans. 10. The Examiner further states, “[t]here is no evidence to the support
the implication of the Appellant that there would be no benefit from
blocking thermal radiation through the drain hole with a baffle.” Id. at 11.
As to Appellant’s argument regarding the existence of holes in Schlenga’s
radiation shield, the Examiner finds that Schlenga also teaches “blocking
thermal radiation from warm exteriors into cold enclosures is highly
desirable by teaching explicitly that even small holes are prevented from
‘seeing’ warmer exterior regions directly.” Id. at 12. Thus, according to the
Examiner, the holes in Schlenga’s radiation shield are blocked with respect
to radiation.4
In reply, Appellant reiterates that there does not appear to be any need
in Bartlett to provide a radiation shield over the unmarked hole at the bottom
of radiation shield 9. Reply Br. 9–10. In this regard, Appellant states,

4 Aside from splash protection, one purpose of Schlenga’s splash protection
surface 33 is to insulate the cryogenic fluid tank from the refrigerator unit.
Schlenga ¶¶ 6–9, 17, 22.
Appeal 2019-001638
Application 12/008,985

6
“Bartlett teaches absolutely nothing about the drain hole, and does not even
mention the entry of any gases therethrough.” Id. at 15.
Appellant also notes that Schlenga’s system is designed to protect a
cryogenic fluid from heat flow into the fluid in the instance of a failure of
the refrigerator. Reply Br. 9–10. According to Appellant, “[e]ven in this
critical context, most of Schlenga’s radiation shields have holes in them—
just as there is an uncovered hole in the radiation shield of the primary
Bartlett reference.” Id. at 10.
Appellant has the better position. Contrary to the Examiner’s finding
that Schlenga discloses that “even small holes are prevented from ‘seeing’
warmer exterior regions directly” (Ans. 12), Figure 3 of Schlenga depicts
open space (between pins 35), which appears to directly expose the interior
of cryogenic tank 2, and its associated cryogenic fluid, to refrigerator space
4. Schlenga ¶ 48. Thus, some radiation may pass between the two areas
intended to be kept isolated by splash protection shield 33. Figure 1 of
Schlenga shows a similar arrangement in which radiation shield 5 includes
openings 11, directly exposing the cryogenic fluid to refrigeration space 4 as
well as refrigerator 6. In other words, Schlenga allows for the presence of
openings between spaces intended to be isolated. Thus, we agree with
Appellant that there is insufficient evidence to support the Examiner’s
finding that, based on the teachings of Schlenga, a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated to cover the hole in the bottom of
radiation shield 9 of Bartlett.
Bartlett discloses a hole in the bottom of radiation shield 9, but, as
Appellant points out, Bartlett does not discuss the function of this hole.
Indeed, Bartlett does not provide a reference number to identify the hole
Appeal 2019-001638
Application 12/008,985

7
relied upon by the Examiner. The Examiner does not identify any portion of
Bartlett that supports a finding that, during operation, gas flows through the
hole in the bottom of radiation shield 9. See Final Act. 3–4. The only
indication that gas flows through this hole and presents a problem is in
Appellant’s Specification. See Spec. 10:18–11:3. Thus, the Examiner’s
reasoning that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to implement splash protection surface 33 of Schlenga as a baffle in
the system of Bartlett to direct gas flow appears to be based on Appellant’s
disclosure. Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that this portion of the
Examiner’s rejection relies on impermissible hindsight, and, therefore, we
do not sustain the rejection of claim 14, and claims 1, 4, 60–62, 64, 65, and
67 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Bartlett and Schlenga.

Rejection II–Bartlett and Bergquist
In Rejection II, the Examiner again relies on Bartlett to teach many of
the elements of claim 14, but relies on Bergquist to teach “a baffle (46)
directly connected to a cryogenic housing (44) to extend across a hole (42)
and to cover the hole (42).” Final Act. 6. The Examiner articulates the same
rationales for modifying the system of Bartlett as set forth in Rejection I,
namely, (i) improved radiation shielding, and (ii) control of the direction of
gas flow. See id. at 7.
Appellant argues that Bergquist does not teach using baffle 46 to
block radiation, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had no
reason to add such a baffle to the system of Bartlett to do so. Appeal Br. 15.
In response, the Examiner finds that baffle 46 would function as a
radiation shield, stating, “the mere location of the baffle of Bergquist does
Appeal 2019-001638
Application 12/008,985

8
provide the operation of blocking thermal radiation inherently.” Ans. 13.
The Examiner states:
The rationale of the rejection is noting that those of ordinary skill
in the art would recognize that radiation shielding is a literal and
actual function of a baffle as explicitly shown by Schlenga and
would recognize that there is a thermal benefit to blocking
thermal radiation from warmer areas outside a radiation shield
enclosure through an opening into the enclosure.
Id. at 14. The Examiner does not identify, and we do not find, any explicit
disclosure in Bergquist regarding any radiation blocking function of baffle
46. Thus, the Examiner relies on the inherent radiation-blocking ability of
baffle 46 as providing rational underpinnings for the reason to modify the
system of Bartlett.
Appellant has the better position because, as discussed above, the
Examiner does not provide any evidence that the unlabeled hole in the
bottom of radiation shield 9 of Bartlett would benefit from additional
radiation shielding. Nor does Bergquist provide any reason for adding
additional radiation shielding via baffle 46, which is provided by Bergquist
for directing gas flow, not for blocking radiation. Consequently, neither
reference would appear to support the Examiner’s rationale based on
radiation blocking.
As to the Examiner’s second rationale, Appellant argues that
“Applicant, not Bergquist, provides the motivation to place a baffle over the
drain hole in Bartlett—namely, the recognition that there can be undesirable
accumulation of condensate on the underside of the array—on non-primary
condensing surfaces.” Appeal Br. 15.
Appeal 2019-001638
Application 12/008,985

9
In response, the Examiner states, “Bergquist explicitly teaches that
providing baffle covering an opening in a radiation shield of a cryopump
does provide the ability to redirect gases that flow through the opening.
There is nothing from the application that is relied upon in making the
combination of the obviousness rejection.” Ans. 14.
In reply, Appellant argues that “Bartlett teaches absolutely nothing
about the drain hole, and does not even mention the entry of any gases
therethrough. The Examiner’s entire analysis is contaminated with hindsight
bias and should be rejected.” Reply Br. 15.
We agree with the Examiner that Bergquist teaches redirecting gas
flow via baffle 46. See Bergquist 7:44–61. However, absent any indication
that the hole in the bottom of radiation shield 9 of Bartlett receives a flow of
gas, Bergquist’s disclosure of redirecting gas flow does not provide an
adequate basis for the Examiner’s proposed rejection. In other words, the
Examiner has not established that the gas redirection function of baffle 46 of
Bergquist would have any effect on gas flow, much less a beneficial one,
when placed over the unlabeled and undescribed hole in the bottom of
Bartlett’s radiation shield 9. For the reasons discussed above, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 14, and claims 1, 4, 60, 62, 64, and 65
depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Bartlett and Bergquist.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.

Appeal 2019-001638
Application 12/008,985

10
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 14, 60–
62, 64, 65,
67
103(a) Bartlett, Schlenga 1, 4, 14,
60–62, 64,
65, 67
1, 4, 14, 60,
62, 64, 65
103(a) Bartlett, Bergquist 1, 4, 14,
60, 62, 64,
65
Overall
Outcome
1, 4, 14,
60–62, 64,
65, 67

REVERSED