Ex Parte Verhaverbeke et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2017

13764132 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 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.
13/764,132 02/11/2013 Steven VERHAVERBEKE 016835 9418
/US/ATG/ATG/ESONG
44257 7590 10/03/2017
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - Applied Materials
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
EXAMINER
TAYLOR, JON S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2017 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):
Pair_Eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN VERHAVERBEKE and ROMAN GOUK
Appeal 2016-006367
Application 13/764,132
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1—20, as
supplemented by an Advisory Action (mailed Oct. 16, 2015). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Applied Materials, Inc. App. Br.
3.
Appeal 2016-006367
Application 13/764,132
Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed subject matter relates to “a substrate carrier plate utilized
in batch processing of substrates, such as substrates utilized in the
production of magnetic media devices.” Spec. para. 2. Claims 1, 10, and 17
are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject
matter.
1. A carrier plate for supporting a plurality of substrates, the
carrier plate comprising:
a disk-shaped body having a first side and a substantially
planar second side opposite the first side; and
a plurality of depressions formed in the first side of the
disk-shaped body, each of the plurality of depressions
comprising:
a sidewall tapering from a surface of the first side
and a bottom surface of the depression; and
a support structure integral to the bottom surface of
the depression, the support structure disposed above the
bottom surface of the depression and geometrically
centered in the depression.
Rejections
I. Claims 1—6, 8—11, 13, 15—18, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Maeda et al. (US 2008/0149590 Al,
published June 26, 2008) (“Maeda”). Final Act. 2—5.
II. Claims 7, 12, 14, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Maeda, Curti (US 4,700,488, issued Oct. 20,
1987) (“Curti”), and Yasahura et al. (JP 2011-54639, published Mar. 17,
2011) (“Yasahura”). Final Act. 6—7.
2
Appeal 2016-006367
Application 13/764,132
DISCUSSION
Rejection I— Claims / 6, 8—11, 13, 15—18, and 20 as anticipated by Maeda
Appellants argue Maeda “discloses a discrete plate-like insulator
member 1 and a discrete disc conductor member 5 that collectively form a
substrate holder 101.” App. Br. 7. Looking at the pieces separately,
Appellants argue there is no depression formed in Maeda’s plate-like
insulator because the insulator member has “through-holes,” and a through-
hole does not have a bottom surface. Id.
As Appellants recognize, however, the Examiner is not relying solely
on Maeda’s insulator member 1. Rather, the Examiner finds the claimed
disk-shaped body is met by Maeda’s plate-like insulator member 1 and disc
conductor member 5 together. Final Act. 2. The presence of the disc
conductor member 5 at the bottom of the plate-like insulator member 1
forms the bottom surface of the depression. See Maeda Fig. 2. Thus,
Appellants’ focus on the components separately, and not in unison, is not
persuasive of Examiner error.
We also agree with the Examiner that claim 1 does not recite that the
bottom surface of the depression is “integral” with the rest of the disk­
shaped body,2 and Appellants do not persuasively argue that the
Specification should be read to impose a limitation on claim 1 requiring a
one-piece, or monolithic disk-shaped body. Ans. 9. Appellants argue that
Figure 3A shows “the support structure is integral to the bottom surface of
the depression due to the hatching.” Reply Br. 4. One of ordinary skill in
2 Elsewhere claim 1 recites “a support structure integral to the bottom
surface of the depression,” but that limitation addresses the relationship
between the support structure and the bottom surface. App. Br. 7.
3
Appeal 2016-006367
Application 13/764,132
the art reading the Specification, however, would not consider this figure to
place any particular emphasis on the number of pieces used to form the
body. And this is not a case in which the Examiner is considering other
structures identified separately in the Specification to be part of the claimed
disk-shaped body, because the collective structure of Maeda relied on by the
Examiner forms the same structure as the disk-shaped body shown in
Appellants’ Specification. Thus, at the same time that a claim must be
interpreted consistent with the Specification, “it is important not to import
into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.” Superguide Corp, v.
DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also In re Van
Genus, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“[L]imitations are not to be
read into the claims from the specification.”); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding the Board properly interpreted “integrally
formed” as encompassing multi-piece structures where the specification
failed to make the appellant’s intended meaning explicitly clear). Here,
interpreting the claimed disk-shaped body to preclude a multi-piece structure
would import details of Appellants’ drawings with no apparent significance
and go well beyond interpreting the claims consistent with the Specification.
Appellants’ arguments, therefore, do not inform us of error in the rejection.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
we are not informed of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Maeda. Thus, we sustain the rejection
of claim 1, and, for the same reasons, the rejection of claims 2—6, 8, 9, 11,
13, 15—18, and 20, which are rejected on the same ground and not argued
separately.
4
Appeal 2016-006367
Application 13/764,132
Regarding independent claim 10, Appellants argue Maeda’s plate-like
insulator 1 and disc conductor member 5 are “not unitary (meaning one
piece), as recited in claim 10.” App. Br. 8. The Examiner cites definitions
of unitary including “of or relating to a unit,” “based on or characterized by
unity or units,” and a definition of unity as “a totality of related parts: an
entity that is a complex or systematic whole.” Ans. 7 (citing www.merriam-
webster.com, accessed Apr. 20, 2016). Based on these definitions, the
Examiner concludes that “an object being . . . unitary does not necessitate it
being monolithic.” Ans. 10. The Examiner also finds that “[t]he discrete
parts of Maeda, when integrated to form a unitary structure (i.e. Figure 2),
do not destroy the operability of the substrate holder,” and that combining
them is the exact intended use of Maeda’s apparatus. Id.
Because the Specification does not use the term “unitary,” and the
Examiner has provided definitions indicating that the term may ordinarily be
interpreted to cover multiple-piece structures as a unit, the issue presented
for claim 10 is the same as that presented for claim 1. Thus, for the same
reasons as claim 1, we sustain the rejection of claim 10 on the same grounds.
Rejection II Claims 7, 12, 14, and 19 as obvious over
Maeda, Curd, and Yasahura
Appellants argue the rejection of claims 7, 12, 14, and 19 are in error
because Curti and Yasahura fail to cure the deficiencies of Maeda in
teaching the limitations of independent claims 1,10, and 17. Thus, for the
same reasons that we sustain the rejection of claims 1,10, and 17, we sustain
the rejections of claims 7, 12, 14, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Maeda, Curti, and Yasahura.
5
Appeal 2016-006367
Application 13/764,132
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20.
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
6