Ex Parte Chintalapati et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2017

12684754 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2017)

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.
12/684,754 01/08/2010 Prudhvi R. Chintalapati 13252USA/FEG/SYNX 5908
41161 7590
DUGAN & DUGAN, PC
245 Saw Mill River Road
Suite 309
Hawthorne, NY 10532
06/26/2017 EXAMINER
KEENAN, JAMES W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3652
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2017 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):
DuganEmail@duganpatent.com
bdugan@duganpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PRUDHVI R. CHINTALAPATI, SATISH SUNDAR,
BORIS AXELROD, MARIO DAVE SILVETTI,
TOM K. CHO, JEFFREY A. BRODINE, JASON K. FOSTER,
and EDWARD NG
Appeal 2016-000464
Application 12/684,754
Technology Center 3600
Before: MICHAEL L. HOELTER, LISA M. GUIJT, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1—24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2016-000464
Application 12/684,754
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a systems, apparatus, and methods for
moving substrates. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A system for moving substrates in an electronic device
manufacturing process, comprising:
a robot for moving substrates, each substrate having
substrate surface faces and substrate edges, the robot comprising
an end effector, the end effector comprising:
a base portion, and
at least three pads disposed on the base portion
wherein each of the pads comprises a contact surface and
at least one contact surface has a domed shape and a
roughness of 45 Ra (pin) to 65 Ra (pin), the domed contact
surface of the at least three pads configured to be in contact
with, and covered by, a substrate surface face.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ballance US 6,395,363 B1 May 28, 2002
Freerks US 6,709,218 B1 Mar. 23, 2004
Blank US 7,048,316 B1 May 23, 2006
Fujioka JP 2007-268748A Oct. 18, 2007
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Freerks, Blank, Fujioka, and Ballance.
Claims 7, 9, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Blank, Fujioka, and Ballance.
2
Appeal 2016-000464
Application 12/684,754
OPINION
Claims 1,7, 15, 16, and 21 are independent. Appellants argue all of
the pending claims subject to this appeal together, with respect to both of the
Examiner’s rejections as stated supra. We select claim 1 as representative.
See 37 C.F.R.
§41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Freerks teaches an end effector of a robot
with a base portion and three pads, each with “a contact surface 25 which
can be a domed shape.” Final Act. 4 (citing Freerks col. 5:27—28). The
Examiner finds that Blank teaches a similar type of end effector “in which
support surfaces thereof have a naturally occurring surface roughness and
can be made of various materials including ceramics such as alumina.” Id.
The Examiner then relies on the teachings of Fujioka and Ballance for the
measured surface roughness of the ceramics and alumina taught by Blank.
Id.
Appellants argue that Freerks does not disclose that “at least one
contact surface of an end effector pad has ‘a domed shape.’” Appeal Br. 6.
Rather, Appellants argue that Freerks discloses that the end effector pad
“preferably has a flattened upper surface” or is made of a ball bearing. Id.
(quoting Freerks col. 5:23—27).
Appellants fail to acknowledge that Freerks expressly teaches that the
end effector pad can be “semi-spherical,” or dome shaped, as determined by
the Examiner supra. Freerks col. 5:27—28 (“Alternatively, the head 25 could
be convex, semi-spherical, spherical, or other geometric shapes.”); see also
Final Act. 4. Thus, we are not informed of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
3
Appeal 2016-000464
Application 12/684,754
Appellants also separately dispute the teachings of Blank, Fujioka,
and Ballance without addressing the combination as set forth in the
rejection. Arguments presented in an appeal must address the grounds of
rejection set forth by the Examiner. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Further,
one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where
the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted) (explaining that obviousness
must be considered in light of “what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art”). For
this reason, we are not informed of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Finally, Appellants argue “that the claimed range of about 45 Ra (pin)
to about 65 Ra (pin) is unexpected in that higher roughness values are not
included in the claimed range.” Appeal Br. 8. Without persuasive evidence,
these statements are merely attorney argument. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d
1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the
place of evidence.”). Thus, we are not informed of error in the Examiner’s
rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—24 are affirmed.
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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
4