Ex Parte RIDDER

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 13, 2018

13859020 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2018)

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.
13/859,020 04/09/2013 de Chris G.M. RIDDER PPP20130022U S 4629
66390 7590
LEX IP MEISTER, PLLC
5180 PARKSTONE DRIVE, SUITE 175
CHANTILLY, VA 20151
EXAMINER
MCALLISTER, STEVEN B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3749
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/13/2018 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 de CHRIS G.M. RIDDER
Appeal 2017-003909
Application 13/859,020
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—15. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates to the field of semiconductor
processing and, more specifically, to wafer boats used in vertical furnaces.”
Spec. 1:5—6. Apparatus claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below.
Appeal 2017-003909
Application 13/859,020
1. A wafer boat for holding a plurality of wafers in a
vertically stacked and spaced relationship, comprising:
a top member;
a bottom member facing the top member; and
at least three vertical members extending between the top
member and the bottom member,
wherein the vertical members are provided with a
plurality of protrusions, the protrusions configured to form a
plurality of wafer accommodations at different vertical heights,
the protrusions configured to be arranged in groups of at least
two protrusions,
wherein a pitch of protrusions within a group has a first
value and a pitch of two vertically adjacent protrusions that
belong to different groups has a second value larger than the
first value.
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Tanaka US 5,492,229 Feb. 20, 1996
Masaki JP 2000-232151A Aug. 22,2000
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1—6 and 8—15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tanaka.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Tanaka and Masaki.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 (and hence its dependent claims 2—9 and 11—15)
includes the limitation “wherein a pitch of protrusions within a group has a
first value and a pitch of two vertically adjacent protrusions that belong to
different groups has a second value larger than the first value.” The
Examiner correlates the recited “pitch” to dimensions W2 and D1 (see Fig.
2
Appeal 2017-003909
Application 13/859,020
7A of Tanaka) and dimensions W4 and D2 (see Fig. 9 A of Tanaka). Final
Act. 4; Ans. 7. Appellant argues, “W2, W4, D1 and D2 are not pitches of
Claim 1.” App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 5 (both referencing Spec. 8:2-4).
Figures 7A and 9A of Tanaka are replicated below.
FIG. 7 A FIG, 9 A
8a
Figure 7A depicts dimensions W2 and Dl, whereas Figure 9A
depicts dimensions W4 and D2. Tanaka, col. 3,11. 61—65, col. 4,11. 4—7.
Appellant’s Specification states, “[t]he pitch is the repetitive mutual
spacing of items. It is the spacing e.g. from the bottom of a recess or wafer
(the top of a protrusion) to the bottom of an adjacent recess or wafer (the top
of an adjacent protrusion).” Spec. 8:1—4; see also Spec., Fig. 1 (the drawing
detail that identifies pitch PI and P2). Accordingly, and based on this
understanding of “pitch,” we agree with the Examiner that
spacings/dimensions Dl and D2 (illustrated above) can properly be
correlated to a “pitch” value. See Final Act. 4; Ans. 7. However, we also
agree with Appellant that dimensions W2 and W4 (illustrated above) cannot.
See App. Br. 7—8; Reply Br. 5—7. Thus, the Examiner’s reliance on
3
Appeal 2017-003909
Application 13/859,020
dimensions W2 and W4 as each depicting a “pitch” is not consistent with
how the term “pitch” would have been understood by one skilled in the art
upon reading Appellant’s Specification.1 Consequently, and based on the
record presented, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—9 and 11—
15.
Claim 10 does not employ the term “pitch,” but instead recites,
“wherein the recesses comprise a plurality of first recesses having a first
height and a plurality of second recesses having a second height larger than
the first height.” The Examiner initially correlates the corresponding
“heights” (of slits/recesses 7, 8) to the same dimensions as above (i.e., W2,
W4, Dl, and D2). Final Act. 7—8; Ans. 8. Appellant contests the
Examiner’s reliance on dimensions Dl and D2 as disclosing a height of a
recess. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 10. The Examiner thereafter provides an
alternate rejection relying on Figure 7A of Tanaka, and more specifically
only dimensions W1 and W2 depicted therein. Ans. 8. The Examiner states
that these dimensions W1 and W2 have different values (7.0 and 3.2 mm
respectively (see Tanaka 8:30-45)) and as such, “Tanaka teaches the last
limitation of claim 10.” Ans. 8. Appellant does not respond to this alternate
rejection, but instead repeats arguments regarding the Examiner’s reliance
on dimensions Dl and D2 as above. See Reply Br. 10. We are unaware of
1 The terms used in patent claims are not construed in the abstract, but in the
context in which the term was presented and used by the patentee, as it
would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the field of the
invention on reading the patent documents. See Biogen Idee, Inc. v.
GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 713 F.3d 1090, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see also In re
ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007);
Phillips v. AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (the
specification is “the primary basis for construing the claims”).
4
Appeal 2017-003909
Application 13/859,020
any error in the Examiner’s alternate reliance solely on dimensions W1 and
W2 as expressed. Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—9 and 11—15 is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 is 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
5