Ex Parte Rudolph et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2018

14016720 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/016,720 09/03/2013
91286 7590 12/03/2018
Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (Lam)
P.O. Box 828
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dirk Rudolph
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
3175 6854
EXAMINER
ZERVIGON, RUDY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/03/2018 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):
sstevens@hdp.com
troymailroom@hdp.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DIRK RUDOLPH and ANTONIO XAVIER
Appeal2017-002929
Application 14/016, 720 1
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the maintained
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1 and 3-17. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant is the applicant Lam Research Corporation, which is also
identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 We refer to the Specification filed September 3, 2013 ("Spec."), the Non-
Final Office Action dated May 3, 2016 ("Non-Final Act."), the Appeal Brief
filed September 16, 2016 ("Appeal Br."), the Examiner's Answer issued
November 14, 2016 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed December 9, 2016
("Reply Br.").
Appeal2017-002929
Application 14/016,720
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The subject matter of the claims on appeal relates to throttle valves.
Spec. ,r 1. Independent claims 1 and 17 are directed to a throttle valve.
Independent claim 12 is directed to a substrate processing system including a
throttle valve. Claim 1 requires projections having a triangular cross-section
on a throttle plate included in the throttle valve. Claim 12 requires
projections on a throttle plate "configured to, ... cut through debris coating
an inner surface of the throttle valve." Claim 17 requires projections having
a triangular cross-section on a throttle plate to cut through debris, as well as
triangular-shaped stop surfaces.
Representative claims 1 and 12 are reproduced below with emphasis:
1. A throttle valve, comprising:
a throttle body including a housing having an inner
surface, wherein the throttle body includes first and second stop
surfaces arranged on the inner surface;
a shaft that rotates about an axis and that is rotatable
relative to the housing;
a throttle plate rotatable inside the housing of the throttle
body about the shaft between a closed position and an open
position and that includes:
a first projection located on a first surface of the throttle
plate adjacent to a radially outer end of the throttle plate,
wherein the first projection has a triangular cross-
section, extends outwardly from the first surface of the throttle
plate to form a first point in a first direction that is
perpendicular to the first surface of the throttle plate, and
contacts the first stop surface when the throttle valve is closed;
and
2
Appeal2017-002929
Application 14/016,720
a second projection located on a second surface of the
throttle plate adjacent to a radially outer end of the throttle
plate,
wherein the second surface is opposite the first surface
and, when the throttle plate is in the closed position, the first
and second surfaces are perpendicular to a flow direction
through the housing, and matter
wherein the second projection has a triangular cross-
section, extends outwardly from the second surface of the
throttle plate to form a second point in a second direction that is
perpendicular to the second surface of the throttle plate, and
contacts the second stop surface when the throttle valve is
closed.
12. A substrate processing system, comprising:
a process chamber having an outlet;
a gas delivery system that delivers a first precursor gas
into the process chamber during a first period to deposit film on
a substrate located within the process chamber;
a throttle valve that is connected to the outlet of the
process chamber and that includes a throttle plate having
projections,
wherein the projections are configured to, during closing
of the throttle valve, cut through debris coating an inner
surface of the throttle valve due to buildup of the first precursor
gas; and
a vacuum pump that removes reactants from the process
chamber through the throttle valve.
Spec. (Claims Appendix) 18-19, 21. Claims 3-11 depend from, or require
the throttle valve according to, claim 1. Claims 13-16 depend from claim
12.
3
Appeal2017-002929
Application 14/016,720
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as follows:
Claims 1 and 3-8 over VanRyck, 3 as demonstrated by Sasaki, 4 in
view of Nomura 5;
Claims 9-13 and 15-17 over VanRyck, Sasaki, Nomura, and
Y amagishi 6; and
Claim 14 over VanRyck, Sasaki, Nomura, Yamagishi, and Moriya. 7
DISCUSSION
On this record, having reviewed the grounds set forth by the
Examiner, Appellant's arguments, and the Examiner's response, we are
persuaded that the Examiner has failed to establish that the claims are
unpatentable. For any ground of rejection, "the [E]xaminer bears the initial
burden ... of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability." In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In meeting this burden, the
Examiner must supply the factual basis for the rejection without "resort[ing]
to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction." In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).
Claims 1 and 3-8
The Examiner sets forth two different bases for the cited prior art
providing the throttle valve of claim 1.
3 VanRyck, US 4,253,641, issued March 3, 1981.
4 Sasaki, US 2007/0240677 Al, published October 18, 2007.
5 Nomura et al., US 6,722,335 B2, issued April 20, 2004.
6 Yamagishi et al., US 2002/0036065 Al, published March 28, 2002.
7 Moriya et al., US 2012/0055402 Al, published March 8, 2012.
4
Appeal2017-002929
Application 14/016,720
In the first, the Examiner relies on V anR yck for teaching a throttle
valve that comprises a throttle plate having projections arranged in a throttle
body having stop surfaces. 8 Non-Final Act. 2-3 (citing VanRyck, Fig. 6).
The Examiner finds that "the first projection (bottom 34 ... has a triangular
cross-section" and that it "extends outwardly from the first surface (bottom
40 ... of the throttle plate [10]." Id. at 3 (citing VanRyck, Fig. 6). The
Examiner also finds, however, that VanRyck "does not teach ... VanRyck's
first projection [34] has a triangular cross-section" that "extends outwardly
from VanRyck's first surface (bottom 40 ... throttle plate [10]." Id. at 5---6.
The Examiner similarly addresses the second projection. Compare id. at 3,
to id. at 6. In addressing what VanRyck does not teach, the Examiner also
finds that, contrary to claim 1, when the throttle is closed, the first and
second surfaces are not perpendicular to a flow direction through the
housing. Id. at 5---6. The Examiner relies on Sasaki as teaching that a
similar valve can be operated "to 'throttle' the conveyed fluid." Id. at 4
( citing Sasaki ,r 93).
In the second, the Examiner relies on Nomura for teaching "a similar
throttle valve with [counter] biased surfaces" (id. at 7 (Nomura, Figs. 3-5))
and the use of "triangular-shaped first and second projections [21 ]" (id.
(citing Nomura, Figs. 3--4)). The Examiner determines "[t]he 'V' shape" to
be "'triangular' because of the three points Nomura's seal forms in space."
Id. at 18. The Examiner elaborates that "Nomura's seal is [illustrated] as a
hollow triangle whereas Applicant's [triangle] is filled in or solid." Ans. 4.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
8 The Examiner relies on VanRyck's element 34 both as to the recited
throttle body projections and the throttle plate projections.
5
Appeal2017-002929
Application 14/016,720
skill in the art "to add additional first and second stop surfaces ... and
projections on opposite sides of VanRyck's throttle plate." Non-Final Act.
7. The Examiner further determines that "one of ordinary skill in the art
would consider variations of V-shape (triangular) obvious change[s] in
shape with the same or substantially the same functionality." Ans. 4 (citing
In re Dailey, 375 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1966)).
As to the first basis, Appellant argues that projections 34 of VanRyck
neither have a triangular cross-section, nor extend outwardly from the first
or second surface of the throttle plate. Appeal Br. 9--10; Reply Br. 2.
Appellant's arguments are well-founded. VanRyck's projections 34
manifestly do not have a triangular cross-section. See VanRyck, Fig. 6. The
edge of VanRyck's valve closure plate 10, cited by the Examiner as 40, is
not reasonably a "surface" of the throttle plate. See, e.g., In re Smith Int 'l,
Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (the "broadest reasonable
interpretation ... is an interpretation that is 'consistent with the
specification"'). Further, if the bottom and top edges were considered to be
the first and second surface of claim 1, when the throttle is closed, these
"surfaces" would not be perpendicular to a flow direction through the
housing.
As to the second basis, Appellant argues that "Nomura's projections
21 do not have a triangular cross-section" and that the "projections 21 also
do not extend outwardly from the throttle plate to form a point in a
direction perpendicular to the first or second surfaces of the throttle plate."
Appeal Br. 11. Appellant emphasizes that the "shape of a cross-section of a
component ... refers to the shape of the component itself when viewed in
cross-section" and "notes that, the legs 21 a and 21 b of Nomura do not by
6
Appeal2017-002929
Application 14/016,720
themselves create a triangle." Reply Br. 4. Appellant's argument is well-
founded. Claim 1 requires that the first and second projections have "a
triangular cross-section" and, even ifNomura's legs 21a and 21b form a
triangle when abutting shoulder 22, as in Nomura's Figure 4, this
requirement is not met.
As to the Examiner's determination that a V-shape projection would
be an obvious variation having the same or substantially the same
functionality (Ans. 4), Appellant argues that the configuration-"the
orientation and shape of the projections on the throttle plate"-is significant
because it "facilitate[ s] cutting through/piercing of process debris on the
inner walls of the throttle valve." Reply Br. 5 (citing Spec. ,r,r 19, 20, 27).
Appellant's argument highlights the failure of the Examiner to provide a
reasonable basis for Nomura's structure having the same or substantially the
same functionality, particularly in cutting through or piercing process
debris. 9 See generally Non-Final Act.; Ans.
On this record, accordingly, the Examiner's articulated reasoning falls
short of that necessary for a prima facie case. See Warner, 379 F.2d at 1017;
see also Oetiker, 977 F .2d at 1445.
Claims 9--17
The Examiner again relies on V anR yck, Sasaki, and Nomura, as
disclosing a throttle valve as depicted in VanRyck with its peripheral sealing
9 While not necessary for our decision as to this rejection, we note that
VanRyck reasonably discloses that its peripheral sealing portion 34 is
elastomeric (VanRyck, Abstract, col. 4, 11. 20-25) and Nomura identifies its
element 21 as an "elastic sealing member" (Nomura, Abstract, col. 4, 11. 15-
16, 26-27).
7
Appeal2017-002929
Application 14/016,720
portion 34 as the recited projection and as modified by the teachings of
Nomura to include its sealing member 21. Non-Final Act. 9--14.
Claims 9--11, depending from claim 1, and claim 1 7 each require that
the first and second projections have a triangle cross-section. The
Examiner's rejection of these claims, accordingly, fails for the reasons
discussed above as to claim 1. See also Appeal Br. 12, 14; Reply Br. 5---6.
Claim 12, and claims 13-16 depending thereon, require that "the
projections are configured to ... cut through debris coating an inner surface
of the throttle valve due to buildup of the first precursor gas" and claim 17
requires that its projections have "a triangular cross-section to cut through
debris on the inner surface." The Specification discloses that "[t]he
projections 218 may have a sharp leading edge to facilitate piercing of
debris" (Spec. ,r 27) and that "[t]he projections and stop surfaces increase
surface contact pressure ... allow[ing] the throttle valve to cut through
process debris during operation" (id. at ,r 19).
The Examiner determines the cited prior art meets the limitations as to
the projections being configured to "cut through debris." In particular, the
Examiner first finds that VanRyck's throttle plate 10 has projections
( top/bottom 34 in Figure 6) and that these are configured to, during closing
of the throttle valve, cut through debris coating an inner surface (11/9
interface) due to buildup of the first precursor gas. Non-Final Act. 10 (citing
VanRyck Figs. 1, 3, 6). The Examiner then also determines that claim 12's
recited limitation of "configured to, during closing of the throttle valve, cut
through debris coating an inner surface of the throttle valve due to buildup of
the first precursor gas" is merely an intended use. Id. at 10-11. The
Examiner further determines that such an "intended use must result in a
8
Appeal2017-002929
Application 14/016,720
structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order
to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art," and that
"if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it
meets the claim." Id. at 11 (citing In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576 (CCPA 1967);
In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937 (CCPA 1963)). The Examiner also sets forth that
"the Examiner believes that the cited prior art to Van Ryck and Nomura,
when combined, share the identical properties Applicant is arguing" and
relies on "the structure recited in the reference [being] substantially identical
to that of the claims" in determining that the "claimed properties or
functions are presumed to be inherent." Ans. 6 (citing In re Best, 562 F.2d
1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977)); see also id. at 7.
Appellant argues that the projections of claim 12 are structurally
configured to cut through debris coating an inner surface of the throttle valve
and that neither VanRyck nor Nomura teach or suggest such projections.
Appeal Br. 14--15. Appellant further argues that the Examiner's belief that
VanRyck and Nomura, in combination, share identical properties with the
claimed subject matter is not sufficient to support the rejection. Reply Br. 8.
Appellant's arguments are well founded. The written description, including
the Specification at paragraphs 19, 20, and 27, makes sufficiently clear that
the phrase "configured to ... cut through debris coating an inner surface of
the throttle valve" has a narrower meaning than just being capable of doing
so. See In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The
Examiner has provided no sound basis for the projections of the combination
being substantially identical to that of the claims, or of being capable of
performing the recited function. See generally Non-Final Act.; Ans. As to
the elements relied on by the Examiner as projections, both VanRyck and
9
Appeal2017-002929
Application 14/016,720
Nomura disclose elastomer or elastic elements. See, e.g., VanRyck,
Abstract, col. 4, 11. 20-25; Nomura, Abstract, col. 4, 11. 15-16, 26-27. The
Examiner offers neither an explanation how such elastomer or elastic
projections are "configured to ... cut through debris," nor any basis why
they would reasonably be expected to be capable of doing so. The
Examiner, thus, fails to address salient characteristics of both the relied on
projections and the debris with respect to these issues, their rigidity and
strength. See generally Non-Final Act; Ans.
On this record, accordingly, the Examiner's articulated reasoning falls
short of that necessary for a prima facie case. See Warner, 379 F.2d at 1017;
see also Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445.
Claim 14
The Examiner again relies in the main on V anR yck, Sasaki, and
Nomura, as disclosing a throttle valve. Non-Final Act. 14--15.
Appellant argues that the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 12,
discussed above, is not remedied in the rejection of claim 14. Appeal Br. 16.
We agree and, accordingly, also find that the Examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case as to claim 14.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-17 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
10