Ex Parte Mooring et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 6, 2012

11015968 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 6, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/015,968 12/17/2004 Ben Mooring LAM2P502 6922
25920 7590 09/07/2012
MARTINE PENILLA GROUP, LLP
710 LAKEWAY DRIVE
SUITE 200
SUNNYVALE, CA 94085
EXAMINER
MACARTHUR, SYLVIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/07/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BEN MOORING,
JOHN PARKS, and DIANE J. HYMES
____________

Appeal 2011-003024
Application 11/015,968
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-003024
Application 11/015,968

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-9 and 19-32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Representative claim 1 reads as follows:
1. An apparatus for processing a substrate, comprising:
a substrate processing chamber defined such that a flat
joining surface defines the substrate processing chamber into a
first chamber above the joining surface and a second chamber
below the joining surface;
a plurality of first chamber inlets defined through and
extending into the first chamber, the first chamber having a first
space with a first radius and each of the first chamber inlets
configured to input a first fluid of a first temperature into the
first space at a first pressure;
a plurality of first chamber outlets defined through and
extending into the first chamber, the plurality of first chamber
outlets defined to remove the first fluid;
a plurality of second chamber inlets defined through and
extending into the second chamber having a second space with
a second radius, the second radius being less than the first
radius and the joining surface defined to provide a support edge
for the substrate when present, the first space and the second
space being joined at the joining surface, wherein each of the
second chamber inlets is configured to input a second fluid of a
second temperature into the second space at a second pressure,
wherein the first fluid does not intermingle with the second
fluid when the substrate is on the support edge; and
a plurality of second chamber outlets defined through and
extending into the second chamber, the plurality of second
chamber outlets defined to remove the second fluid;
Appeal 2011-003024
Application 11/015,968

3
wherein the first pressure and the second pressure are
substantially equal.
Independent claims 19 and 28 include the same features of claim 1,
except claim 19 recites the support edge is provided by the insulating
material recited therein (Claims Appdx; App. Br. 19).
The Examiner maintains, and Appellants appeal, the following
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
A. Claims 1-9 as unpatentable over Liu (US 6,315,832 B1 issued
Nov. 13, 2001) in view of Parks (US 7,392,815 B2 issued July 1,
2008);
B. Claims 1-9 as unpatentable over Talieh (US 6,248,398 B1 issued
June 19, 2001) in view of Parks;
C. Claims 1-9 as unpatentable over Liu in view of Akimoto
(US 6,097,005 issued Aug. 1, 2000);
D. Claims 1-9 as unpatentable over Talieh in view of Akimoto; and
E. Claims 19-32 as unpatentable over Liu or Talieh in view of
Akimoto or Parks, further in view of Ono (US 2005/0034674 A1
issued Feb. 17, 2005).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). It is
elementary that to support an obviousness rejection, all of the claim
limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art applied. See In re
Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 984-85 (CCPA 1974).
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and
the Examiner, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not met the
burden in this case for substantially the reasons set forth by Appellants in the
Appeal 2011-003024
Application 11/015,968

4
Briefs (e.g., App. Br. 8-19; Reply Br. 4-9). We add the following for
emphasis.
Appellants’ main contention is that none of the applied references
(Liu, Parks, Talieh, Akimoto, Ono) teaches or suggests a flat joining surface
defining a first upper chamber and a second lower chamber and further
defined to provide a support edge for the substrate, wherein the first and
second fluids do not intermingle when the substrate is present (App. Br.;
Reply Br. generally). Appellants further point out that Parks explicitly
teaches that the first fluid chamber is in fluid communication with the
underlying second chamber volume 115 through a fluid communication
pathway (App. Br. 14). In light of this explicit teaching, the Examiner does
not adequately explain how the structure of Parks (or the Liu/Parks or
Talieh/Parks combination) is capable of functioning such that the two fluids
do not intermingle as recited in claim 1 (Ans. generally). Likewise, the
Examiner does not adequately address Appellants’ contentions that the
Liu/Akimoto or Talieh/Akimoto combinations do not teach or suggest these
features. (Id.).
Notably, the Examiner also does not articulate any reason why one
would have changed the structure of either primary reference (that is, Liu or
Talieh) so as to result in a flat joining surface as required, further arranged
so that the first and second fluids of the first and second chambers do not
intermingle, as recited in claim 1 (as also recited in independent claims 19
and 28).
Accordingly, a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Appellants’ assertions in their Briefs.
Appeal 2011-003024
Application 11/015,968

5
For the foregoing reasons, and those presented by Appellants in the
Briefs, the Examiner has not satisfied the initial burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness.
Accordingly, we reverse all of the Examiner’s § 103 rejections on
appeal.
CONCLUSION
The § 103 rejections before us on appeal are reversed.

REVERSED
bar