Ex Parte Blonigan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2013

11176742 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2013)

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.
11/176,742 07/07/2005 Wendell T. Blonigan 010229.02/SBG/SOLAR-TF/AG 7068
44257 7590 08/01/2013
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX
3040 POST OAK BOULEVARD, SUITE 1500
HOUSTON, TX 77056
EXAMINER
RUDAWITZ, JOSHUA I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3652
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2013 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 WENDELL T. BLONIGAN and JOHN M. WHITE
____________

Appeal 2011-007605
Application 11/176,742
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-007605
Application 11/176,742

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Wendell T. Blonigan and John M. White (Appellants) appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 2, 4-8, and 10-33.1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to “a substrate handling system.”
Spec., para [0002]. Claim 2 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below.
2. Apparatus for handling a substrate, comprising:
a conveyor arranged to convey a substrate thereon in at
least a first direction;
a first substrate handler movable between a first idle
position disposed beneath a substrate support elevation of the
conveyor, a first transfer position disposed above the conveyor,
and a second transfer position lateral to the first transfer
position;
a first vertical motion assembly adapted to move the first
substrate handler vertically between the first idle position and
the first transfer position; and
a first horizontal motion assembly adapted to move the
substrate handler horizontally between the first and second
transfer positions;
wherein the first substrate handler comprises:
a first bracket; and
a first plurality of fingers extending laterally from
the first bracket and having a substrate support surface,
wherein at least two of the first plurality of fingers are
separated by substrate supports of the conveyor that
define the substrate support elevation of the conveyor.

1 Claims 1, 3, and 9 were canceled in an Amendment-After-Final dated
August 29, 2008.
Appeal 2011-007605
Application 11/176,742

3
EVIDENCE

The Examiner relies on the following evidence:

Bonora US 2006/0188358 A1 Aug. 24, 2006

REJECTIONS

Claims 19-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as being indefinite. Ans. 3, 7.
Claims 2, 4-7, 10-22, 24-30, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Bonora. Ans. 3-6.
Claims 8, 17, 18, 23, 31, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bonora. Ans. 6-7.

ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph
The Examiner states that “the relationship being claimed between
inner and outer designations of parts” is unclear, because “there is no
indication of what they are in or out of” (Ans. 3), and that Appellants’
Specification does not explicitly define the terms inner and outer (Ans. 8).
Appellants argue that the terms “inner” and “outer” are used in their “natural
meaning” in the Specification and therefore need not be explicitly defined
(Reply Br. 3), and further that the Specification defines the spatial
relationship of the outer substrate handler being outward of the inner
substrate handler (App. Br. 12). One skilled in the art would understand the
meaning of the inner and outer designation of parts in claims 19-33, because
Appellants have used the terms inner and outer to indicate a relative
positioning with which one skilled in the art and even an unskilled artisan is
Appeal 2011-007605
Application 11/176,742

4
familiar – outer lies exterior to inner. Even if, as the Examiner suggests, the
claims do not specify what the parts are in or out of, this is merely breadth,
not indefiniteness, as the parts merely need to be in or out with respect to
something (as opposed to being in line). We therefore do not sustain the
rejection of claims 19-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
The Examiner finds that Bonora describes a conveyor 160 for
conveying a substrate, the conveyor having a port and a plurality of rollers, a
first (inner) substrate handler 100 between a first idle position beneath a
substrate support elevation of the conveyor (Fig. 2B), a first transfer position
above the conveyor (Fig. 2D), and a second transfer position lateral to the
first transfer position (Fig. 2E). Ans. 4. The Examiner also finds that
Bonora describes a first vertical motion assembly 120 to move the first
(inner) substrate handler vertically between the first idle position and the
first transfer position, and a first horizontal motion assembly 126 to move
the substrate handler horizontally between the first and second transfer
positions. Id. The Examiner further finds that the first (inner) substrate
handler comprises a first bracket having a substrate support surface 112 and
a first plurality of fingers 124 separated by substrate supports of the
conveyor that define the substrate support elevation of the conveyor, and a
first horizontal motion assembly 126 to move the substrate handler between
the first and second transfer positions in a direction perpendicular to the first
direction. Id. The Examiner then finds that the first vertical motion
assembly 120 is disposed between the first bracket and the first horizontal
motion assembly126, and moves between substrate supports of the conveyor
Appeal 2011-007605
Application 11/176,742

5
when the first (inner) substrate handler moves between the first and second
transfer positions. Id.
The Examiner finds that Bonora describes a second independently-
controllable substrate handler (Figure 1) positioned outwardly from and
structurally identical to the first substrate handler, the second (outer)
substrate handler being movable between a second idle position disposed
beneath the substrate support elevation of the conveyor, a third transfer
position disposed above the conveyor, and a fourth transfer position lateral
to the third transfer position. Ans 4-5.
Claims 2 and 5-7
Appellants argue claims 2 and 5-7 as a group. App. Br. 14. We select
independent claim 2 as representative. Claims 5-7 stand or fall with
representative claim 2. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants argue that there is no single embodiment of Bonora that
discloses a substrate handler comprising a bracket, fingers, and a horizontal
actuator. App. Br. 13. The Examiner responds that Bonora’s single
embodiment in Figures 1-3 discloses a bracket, fingers, and a horizontal
actuator. Ans. 8.
Appellants argue that Bonora’s supports 124 do not have a substrate
support surface as required by claim 2, and that Bonora’s supports and “U-
shaped structure are not adapted to move horizontally by a horizontal motion
assembly such as the substrate handler set forth in claim 2.” Reply Br. 4.
However, Bonora’s supports 124 indeed have a substrate support surface
because they each include a surface that supports the plate 112 on which the
substrate is placed. In addition, the claims do not require that the plurality of
fingers move horizontally – the claims only require that the fingers are part
Appeal 2011-007605
Application 11/176,742

6
of a horizontal motion assembly that is adapted to move the substrate
handler horizontally. Bonora’s fingers (supports 124) are indeed a part of a
horizontal motion assembly 126 that can move a substrate handler
horizontally.
For the reasons set forth above, we sustain the rejection of claims 2
and 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Bonora.
Claims 10, 11, and 13-16
Appellants argue claims 10, 11, and 13-16 as a group. App. Br. 14-
15. We select independent claim 10 as representative. Claims 11 and 13-16
stand or fall with representative claim 10. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants do not advance any separate arguments regarding the
patentability of claim 10, instead making the same arguments that were
made with respect to claim 2. We therefore sustain the rejection of claims
10, 11, and 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Bonora.
Claims 19, 20, 22, 24-28, 30, and 33
Appellants again advance the arguments made regarding patentability
of claim 2, discussed above, and additionally argue that Bonora does not
teach or suggest a conveyor sleeve having a port. App. Br. 15. The
Examiner responds that the claimed conveyor sleeve is taught by Bonora’s
mounting plate 116 in Figure 2A, and the port is taught by element 114,
which is a door. Ans. 9. Appellants argue that Bonora’s mounting plate 116
cannot be the claimed conveyor sleeve because it does not include the
claimed plurality of rollers or a substrate handler disposed within the
conveyor sleeve given that the plate 116 has no inner volume. Reply Br. 5-
6. We agree with Appellants. If Bonora’s plate 116 is the conveyor sleeve,
then Bonora does not include at least the “plurality of rollers that support
Appeal 2011-007605
Application 11/176,742

7
and move substrates through the conveyor sleeve.” We therefore do not
sustain the rejection of claims 19, 20, 22, 24-28, 30, and 33 as anticipated by
Bonora. Claims 21 and 29 depend from claim 19 and we therefore also do
not sustain the rejection of claim 21 and 29 as anticipated by Bonora.
Claims 4 and 12
Claim 4 recites “the first vertical motion assembly is disposed
between the first bracket and the first horizontal motion assembly” and claim
12 recites “the second substrate handler further compris[ing] a second
vertical motion assembly disposed between the second bracket and the
second horizontal motion assembly.” Appellants argue that Bonora does not
teach or suggest a vertical motion assembly disposed between a bracket of a
substrate handler and a horizontal motion assembly, because Bonora’s z-
drive 120 does not move horizontally, but rather vertically moves a FOUP
advance plate assembly 122, and the FOUP advance plate assembly 122 has
a kinematic plate 112 and a drive 126 to move the kinematic plate 112
horizontally. App. Br. 16 (citing Bonora Figure 2A). Bonora’s z-drive 120
is not disposed between the (horizontal) drive 126 and the kinematic plate
112. The Examiner does not appear to address this argument, and we do not
find any disclosure in Bonora of a vertical motion assembly disposed
between a bracket and a horizontal motion assembly. We therefore do not
sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 12 as anticipated by Bonora.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 8, 17, 18, 23, 31, and 32
Appellants do not advance any separate arguments regarding the
patentability of claims 8, 17, 18, 23, 31, and 32. We therefore sustain the
Appeal 2011-007605
Application 11/176,742

8
rejection of claims 8, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bonora.
Claims 23, 31, and 32
Claims 23, 31, and 32 depend from claim 19. We do not sustain the
rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Bonora for at least the reasons set forth above regarding claim 19.

DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 19-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 2, 5-7, 10, 11, 13-22, 24-30, and
33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Bonora.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 4 and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Bonora.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 19, 20, 22, 24-28, 30, and 33
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bonora.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 8, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bonora.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 23, 31, and 32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bonora.

Appeal 2011-007605
Application 11/176,742

9
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-IN-PART

Klh