Lutz Rebstock

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 16, 2020

2020002237 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2020)

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.
13/537,022 06/28/2012 Lutz Rebstock 1229P015354-US(PAR) 8013
106446 7590 09/16/2020
Perman & Green, LLP
99 Hawley Lane
Stratford, CT 06614
EXAMINER
MCCLAIN, GERALD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3652
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2020 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 LUTZ REBSTOCK
__________

Appeal 2020-002237
Application 13/537,022
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, BRADLEY B. BAYAT, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Lutz Rebstock (Appellant)1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134
of the decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 23, 33, and 34, which constitute all
the claims on appeal.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as “Brooks Automation GmbH (which
acquired Dynamic Micro Systems).” Appeal Br. 1. We note that
assignment of this application has not been recorded with the USPTO.
2 Claims 6, 21, 22, 24–32 are withdrawn and claims 2, 3, and 8–20 are
canceled. Id. at 2.
Appeal 2020-002237
Application 13/537,022

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to apparatuses “for storing
workpieces or workpiece containers, such as wafer or reticle carriers used in
the semiconductor fabrication industry.” Spec. 1. Apparatus claims 1 and
33 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A robot for transferring a workpiece, the robot comprising:

a robot arm having a gripper for supporting a workpiece, the
gripper being located at a first end of the robot arm, wherein each
workpiece is carried by the gripper with movement of the robot
arm that transports the carried workpiece, and the movement of
the robot arm and transport, of the carried workpiece, effected by
the movement of the robot arm are common and correspond
uniquely with respect to each other, for each different workpiece
transported and carried by the gripper;

at least one sensor coupled to the gripper, wherein the at least
one sensor is disposed so that the at least one sensor has a
position relative to the carried workpiece, carried by the gripper,
so that for each different workpiece transported and carried by
the gripper the at least one sensor senses a gas flow, unaffected
by a presence of the carried workpiece, from at least one nozzle,
coincident with the common movement of the robot arm that
corresponds uniquely to and transports the carried workpiece
common with its transport, and common movement of the robot
arm corresponding uniquely thereto, to the at least one nozzle
and effects engagement of the carried workpiece with the at least
one nozzle, before the carried workpiece, carried by the gripper
in the common movement, reaches the at least one nozzle during
the common movement; and

a robot arm mechanism coupled to a second end of the robot arm,
wherein the robot arm mechanism is configured to move the
robot arm.
Appeal 2020-002237
Application 13/537,022

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (Pre-
AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 23, 33, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Hollis, Jr. et al. (US 4,745,681, iss. May 24,
1988) (“Hollis”).
OPINION
Written Description
In rejecting claim 1 as failing to comply with the written description
requirement, the Examiner found the limitation “the at least one sensor
senses a gas flow, unaffected by a presence of the carried workpiece, from at
least one nozzle” is new matter. Final Act. 2. According to the Examiner:
The word “unaffected” is a strong adjective which precludes the
two structures from depending on each other in any way. Since
there is no barrier between the workpiece and the sensor, the
workpiece’s presence creates a dependency between the
workpiece and sensor in reference to the gas flow which has
some interaction with both the workpiece and sensor. See Fig.
10C-10D of the instant application, the presence of workpiece
105 creates interaction between airflow 104 at nozzle 103 and
sensor 102 due to deflection of air currents around and back-
pressures at workpiece 105. The gas flow changes when a
workpiece is present. The gas flow also changes in relation to
the gas flows in Fig. l0C-10D when there is no workpiece in
Fig. 10B.
Id. at 2–3.
Alleging error in the rejection, Appellant argues the Examiner is
improperly construing the claim language, and, consequently, misapplying
Appeal 2020-002237
Application 13/537,022

4
the written description requirement. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant asserts that
when the claim is properly construed,
it is clear that non-presence of a workpiece on the gripper is
irrelevant with respect to what is claimed as the claim language
clearly recites “that for each different workpiece transported
and carried by the gripper the at least one sensor senses a gas
flow, unaffected by a presence of the carried workpiece, from
at least one nozzle, coincident with the common movement of
the robot arm that corresponds uniquely to and transports the
carried workpiece common with its transport….” The claim
language requires nothing (i.e., raises no limitation) regarding
not carrying or having no presence of a workpiece.
Id. at 6. We are persuaded the Examiner misconstrued the claim
language.
Claim language must be interpreted in the context of the claim as a
whole in light of Appellant’s Specification. Divorced from the context of
the claim, the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim language “hinges on the
notion that the gas flow is affected depending on the presence/nonpresence
of a workpiece.” Appeal Br. 6. Yet, the relevant portion of claim 1 “recites
‘that for each different workpiece transported and carried by the gripper the
at least one sensor senses a gas flow, unaffected by a presence of the
carried workpiece, from at least one nozzle” (id. at 6–7), “before the carried
workpiece, carried by the gripper in the common movement, reaches the at
least one nozzle.” That is, “the sensor sensing is not affected by the carried
workpiece as the sensor senses the gas flow before the carried workpiece
ever reaches the gas flow.” Id. at 7.
Sensor detection can be performed during the path to the
desired storage location, thus incurring no overhead, and the
throughput of the stocker can remain essentially the same,
Appeal 2020-002237
Application 13/537,022

5
despite the additional action of detecting purge gas flow. The
sensor detects the flow from the nozzle before the carrier,
simultaneously carried by the robot arm, reaches the nozzle and
detects a flow during a robot arm movement that transports the
carrier. Further, it is clear that after detecting presence of a gas
flow at the nozzle, the robot arm continues its movement
forward with the carrier thereon. If the gas flow from the nozzle
is detected by the sensor (during the robot arm move carrying
the same carrier to the gas nozzle and before the carrier reaches
the nozzle) one skilled in the art can clearly reasonably
conclude the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Id. at 6 (citing Spec. 17:3–18:10, Figs. 10A–10D, 11A–11B, and 12A–12D).
In response to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner maintained that
“the presence of different workpieces does affect the sensing of gas flow
from nozzle 103” and stated that “the claimed subject matter under
contention is not supported across all locations in Fig. 10B-l0E. The
language may be true for Fig. 10B-l0C; however, it is clearly not for at least
Fig. 10D. In some locations, workpiece 105 interferes with gas flow
104/104A and others do not interfere with gas flow 104/104A; therefore, the
mere presence of the carried workpiece affects the sensing of the gas flow.”
Ans. 5.
There is no dispute that the presence of a workpiece affects gas flow,
but the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim is focused solely on gas flow
affectation; but, the claimed sensor sensing the gas flow from at least one
nozzle is unaffected by a presence of the carried workpiece “before the
carried workpiece . . . reaches the at least one nozzle during the common
movement,” as recited in the claim. In other words, the claimed sensor
component operates to sense gas flow at the nozzle without influence by a
Appeal 2020-002237
Application 13/537,022

6
presence of the carried workpiece until the carried workpiece reaches the
nozzle.
The Examiner acknowledged that the claimed subject matter is
supported by some locations in Appellant’s original disclosure (e.g., Figs.
10B, 10C), yet, the Examiner erroneously concluded that the claim
limitation at issue must be supported “across all” disclosed locations to
comply with the written description requirement. However, the claim
language, as discussed, indicates the location of the workpiece in relation to
the sensor sensing the gas flow, i.e., “before the carried workpiece . . .
reaches the at least one nozzle.” Claimed subject matter complies with the
written description requirement as long as the disclosure of the application
reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor possessed the
claimed subject matter as of the filing date; here, the Examiner concluded
that Appellant had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing
date.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph.
Anticipation by Hollis
Independent claim 1
In contesting the rejection of claim 1, Appellant argues that Hollis
fails to disclose “at least one sensor is disposed so that the at least one sensor
has a position relative to the carried workpiece, carried by the gripper, so
that for each different workpiece transported and carried by the gripper the
at least one sensor senses a gas flow, unaffected by a presence of the carried
workpiece, from at least one nozzle . . . before the carried workpiece,
Appeal 2020-002237
Application 13/537,022

7
carried by the gripper in the common movement, reaches the at least one
nozzle during the common movement.” See Appeal Br. 8.
In response to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner maintained that
“during the transport of workpiece 1 in Hollis, FIG. 5-6, airflow 7 is affected
by the presence of workpiece 1 in a similar manner as in Fig. 10A-10E of
the current application. The blockage/free flow of the airflow by the
workpiece in Hollis and the current application affect how the sensors sense
the airflow from the nozzle/hole.” Ans. 5–6. We are not persuaded of
reversible error.
Figure 5 of Hollis shows at least one sensor 6 is disposed so that the at
least one sensor 6 has a position relative to the carried workpiece 1, carried
by the gripper 5, so that for each different workpiece transported and carried
by the gripper 5 the at least one sensor 6 senses a gas flow 7, unaffected by
a presence of the carried workpiece (Fig. 5, sensor 6 registers force value
unaffected by the presence of pin 1), from at least one nozzle 2 . . . before
the carried workpiece 1, carried by the gripper 5 in the common movement
9, reaches the at least one nozzle 2 during the common movement 9 (Fig. 6,
sensor 6 registers null when pin 1 reaches nozzle 2).
Hollis “relates to automatic sensing of the airflow at a hole, and
moving a pin laterally to a position within the airflow where lateral forces of
the sensed airflow most closely approach null over the hole, to position the
pin at the insertion point for the hole.” Hollis 1:8–12. Although we agree
that sensors 6 of Hollis are force sensors, we disagree that they “are
incapable of sensing ‘air flow.’” See Reply Br. 4. Hollis indicates that “the
instrumentation senses the lateral forces of airflow forming a capture region
Appeal 2020-002237
Application 13/537,022

8
of a hole linking pressure differentials.” Hollis 3:10–12; id. 3:32–33
(“controlled insertion of pins into holes using airflow detection”).
According to Hollis: “The airflow includes vertical (Z) and horizontal (X, Y)
force components relative to coordinate frame 8. The lateral components of
these force vectors are detected by force sensors 6.” Id. 4:56–59. In other
words, the force sensors are capable of sensing a gas flow from the lateral
forces of gas flow lines from the hole, unaffected by the presence of the pin
before it reaches the hole during movement.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 as being
anticipated by Hollis, and dependent claim 4, 5, 7, and 23, which are not
argued separately. See Appeal Br. 10.
Independent claim 33
We are persuaded that Hollis fails to disclose “at least one sensor
being configured so that the at least one sensor senses both a gas flow and an
absence of gas flow from the at least one nozzle to effect detection of both
the gas flow and the absence of gas flow, unaffected by a presence of the
workpiece on the workpiece holding area, from the at least one nozzle,” as
recited in claim 33. Appeal Br. 10.
We disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Hollis’s sensor 6 as
shown in Figure 4 is capable of performing the claimed function and
corresponds to the claimed sensor configured to sense both a gas flow and an
absence of gas flow from a nozzle to effect detection of both at the nozzle,
unaffected by a presence of the workpiece on the workpiece holding area
(see Final Act. 4–5, citing Hollis Fig. 4), because Figure 4 of Hollis shows
that sensor 6 is only capable of sensing the absence of gas flow when pin 1
Appeal 2020-002237
Application 13/537,022

9
is present at the nozzle. Claim 33 requires the claimed sensor to sense both
a gas flow and an absence of gas flow from a nozzle to effect detection of
both the gas flow and the absence of gas flow at the nozzle, unaffected by a
presence of the workpiece on the workpiece holding area.
In other words, the claimed sensor senses and detects both gas flow
and the absence of gas flow regardless of a workpiece being present on the
holding area, for the purpose of marking the storage compartment as
defective if gas flow is not detected. Spec. 20:5–7 (describes marking the
compartment as defective if gas flow is not detected and transferring the
workpiece to another compartment). Hollis’s sensor, however, is only
shown as being capable of sensing and detecting the absence of gas flow
when the workpiece 1 is present over the nozzle 2 diverging gas flow, and,
therefore, affected by the presence of the workpiece on the workpiece
holding area. Consequently, the Examiner erred in finding that Hollis’s
sensor is capable of sensing both a gas flow and an absence of gas flow from
the at least one nozzle to effect detection of both the gas flow and the
absence of gas flow from the at least one nozzle, unaffected by a presence of
the workpiece on the workpiece holding area. “[A]bsence from the
reference of any claimed element negates anticipation.” Kloster Speedsteel
AB v. Crucible Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Furthermore, we note that the Federal Circuit has held that
“configured to” language requires that the specific element is not only
“capable of” performing the recited function, but is also specifically
designed to accomplish the function claimed. See Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v.
Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d. 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (The phrase
Appeal 2020-002237
Application 13/537,022

10
“configured to” is construed more narrowly than “capable of” such that the
structure must be designed to accomplish the specified objective, not simply
that it can be made to serve that purpose.).
For these reasons, we find that Hollis cannot anticipate claim 33.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 33 as
being anticipated by Hollis, and claim 34 dependent thereon.
CONCLUSION
The decision to reject claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 23 is affirmed.
The decision to reject claims 33 and 34 is reversed.
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 5, 7, 23 112 ¶ 1 Written
Description
1, 4, 5, 7, 23
1, 4, 5, 7, 23,
33, 34
102(b) Hollis 1, 4, 5, 7, 23 33, 34
Overall Outcome 1, 4, 5, 7, 23 33, 34

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED IN PART