Ex Parte Rice et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 24, 2012

10988175 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 24, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte MICHAEL R. RICE, ERIC A. ENGLHARDT,
ROBERT B. LOWRANCE, MARTIN R. ELLIOTT, and
JEFFREY C. HUDGENS
____________________

Appeal 2009-012875
Application 10/988,175
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and
PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-012875
Application 10/988,175
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Miller (US 2,458,621; iss. Jan.
11, 1949), and claims 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of
Miller. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention “relates generally to the field of
semiconductor substrate carriers, and more specifically to methods and
apparatuses for aligning a substrate carrier on a surface and preventing
lateral motion of the substrate carrier despite acceleration thereof.” Spec.
2:2-6. Independent claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is
reproduced below and is illustrative (emphasis added):
1. A kinematic pin for supporting a substrate carrier,
comprising:
a pin body comprising:
an inclined surface that slidably communicates
with an inclined surface of a mating feature of a
substrate carrier, and allows the mating feature to locate
on and laterally align with the kinematic pin via the force
of gravity; and
a shear member that deters a lateral inertial load
arising from the substrate carrier from urging the mating
feature of the substrate carrier into misalignment with the
kinematic pin,
wherein the pin body permits the substrate carrier to be
elevated relative to the kinematic pin.

ISSUE
Claim 1 calls for a pin body that includes an inclined surface that
slidably communicates with an inclined surface of a mating feature of a
Appeal 2009-012875
Application 10/988,175
3
substrate carrier. Both rejections rely upon the Examiner’s finding that
Miller’s pin body1 includes an inclined surface (outer conical portion 162)
that slidably communicates with the inclined surface of a mating feature of a
substrate carrier (tapered bushing 23).2 Ans. 3-4. The Examiner also finds
that Miller’s pin body includes an inclined surface (outer conical portion
162) that slidably communicates with the inclined surface of the furniture leg
as shown in Miller’s figures 3-5. Ans. 5. Appellants argue that the
Examiner’s findings that Miller discloses a pin body having an inclined
surface as called for in claim 1 are in error. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 6.
The issue presented by this appeal is whether the Examiner’s finding
that Miller discloses a pin body having an inclined surface as called for in
claim 1 is in error.

ANALYSIS
Outer conical portion 162 of Miller’s rubber plug 10 is separated from
the inclined surface of tapered bushing 23 by annular recess 14.3 Miller, col.
2, ll. 48-50; fig. 3. Further, outer conical portion 162 of Miller’s rubber plug
10 is also separated from the inclined surface of the furniture leg (tapered
bushing 3 and truncated conical portion 24) by annular recess 14. Miller,
col. 3, ll. 20-22; figs. 4, 5. Because the inclined surfaces of tapered bushing
23 and the furniture leg (tapered bushing 3or truncated conical portion 24)
do not contact outer conical portion 162, these surfaces are not in slidable

1 The Examiner identifies cylindrical portion 15 of rubber plug 10 as
corresponding to the claimed pin body.
2 The obviousness rejection does not modify this finding. Ans. 4.
3 Intermediate portion 16 is comprised of inner cylinder section 16’ and
outer conical portion 162. Miller, col. 2, ll. 46-28; fig. 1.
Appeal 2009-012875
Application 10/988,175
4
communication. Consequently, each of the Examiner’s findings are in error,
and we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1-10.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s finding that Miller discloses a pin body having an
inclined surface as called for in claim 1 is in error.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-10.

REVERSED

nlk