Ex Parte Ettinger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 24, 2013

11538302 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GARY C. ETTINGER, MICHAEL E. KHAU, and
HO SEON SHIN
____________

Appeal 2011-003079
Application 11/538,302
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and
BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-003079
Application 11/538,302

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Gary C. Ettinger, Michael E. Khau, and Ho Seon Shin (“Appellants”)
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims
1-11, 13-20, and 22-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1, 8, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is directed to an
apparatus, claim 8 is directed to a method, and claim 16 is directed to a
system. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is
reproduced below.
1. A pusher pin for use during substrate drying
comprising:
a shaft portion; and
a tip portion disposed at an end of the shaft portion, the
tip portion having a knife edge of a width of 0.42 inches or less,
the tip portion made fit to contact an edge of a substrate and
support the substrate with the knife edge;
wherein the pusher pin is made fit to lift the substrate
from a fluid at an angle relative to a vertical axis.
References
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Hearne US 5,566,466 Oct. 22, 1996
Kamikawa US 6,119,367 Sept. 19, 2000
Jones US 6,477,786 B1 Nov. 12, 2002

Rejections
The Examiner makes the following rejections:
I. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Hearne;
Appeal 2011-003079
Application 11/538,302

3
II. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hearne;
III. Claims 8-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hearne and Jones; and
IV. Claims 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hearne, Jones, and Kamikawa.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
OPINION
Rejection I – Anticipation
The Examiner found that Hearne anticipates claims 1-5 because it
discloses each and every element of the claims. Ans. 4. In particular, the
Examiner found that Hearne discloses “a tip portion 216,” and “the claimed
knife edge width of about 0.32 inches or less (column 4 lines 24-56 inherent
because it necessarily follows that a wafer width is less than 0.32 inches),
knife edged [sic] is radiused (figure 3).” Id.
Appellants assert that Hearne fails to disclose all of the elements of
claim 1. App. Br. 6-10. In particular, Appellants contend, inter alia, that
Hearne fails to disclose “a pusher pin with a knife edge having a width of
0.42 inches or less” because Hearne discloses a “bumper,” and not “a pusher
pin with a knife edge.” Id. at 10.
A determination that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
involves two analytical steps. First, we interpret the claim language, where
necessary, giving the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light
of the Specification. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appeal 2011-003079
Application 11/538,302

4
Second, we compare the construed claim to a prior art reference and make
factual findings to determine whether “each and every limitation is found
either expressly or inherently in [that] single prior art reference.” Id.
(citation omitted). An Examiner’s factual finding regarding what a reference
discloses must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re
Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“preponderance of the
evidence is the standard that must be met by the PTO in making rejections”);
see also In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1449 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (Plager, J.,
concurring) (“In rejecting an application, factual determinations by the PTO
must be based on a preponderance of the evidence, and legal conclusions
must be correct.”) (citation omitted).
The claimed “knife edge” plainly connotes to one of ordinary skill in
the art just that, an edge that resembles a knife. In other words, claim 1 calls
for a tip portion of the pusher pin to be similar to a knife edge. The plain
and ordinary meaning of knife edge in this context is “any sharp edge or
sharp-edged ridge.” Chambers 21st Century Dictionary (2001), available at
http://www.credoreference.com/entry/chambdict/knife_edge (last visited
Apr. 16, 2013). The Specification discloses that the tip tapers to a knife
edge, and we discern nothing in the Specification inconsistent with the
ordinary meaning of the term. See, e.g., Spec. 4, ll. 25-27 (“The tip 105 may
have a height h2 of about .485 in. and a base of diameter d2 of about .32 in.
which tapers to a knife edge 107 (described below).”); see also Figure 1
(element 107); App. Br. 4 (identifying Figure 1 as an embodiment
corresponding to claim 1).
As noted above, the Examiner relied upon element 216 of Hearne as
allegedly disclosing the tip portion of claim 1. Ans. 4. Hearne describes
Appeal 2011-003079
Application 11/538,302

5
element 216 as “a wafer holding bumper” that is on top of a “generally L-
shaped member[] 215.” See, e.g., Hearne, col. 4, ll. 2-4; Figures 2-3.
Hearne also discloses that “[t]he wafer holder 200 is designed such that
when the components are within the positions shown in FIGS. 7 through 8,
the wafer is firmly grasped by all bumpers 216 of wafer holding members
211.” Id. at col. 7, ll. 19-22. As shown in, inter alia, Figures 2 and 3,
bumper element 216 has two projections between which resides a portion
that can receive and firmly grasp a wafer (substrate). See id. at Figures 2, 3;
id. at col. 7, ll. 19-22. The Examiner’s findings appear to indicate that the
portion of bumper 216 within which the wafer resides inherently must be
“about 0.32 inches or less” because a wafer width is less than 0.32 inches.
Ans. 4. The portion of bumper 216 within which the wafer resides,
however, is not a “knife edge” as required by claim 1 because it is not a
sharp edge or sharp-edged ridge).
Accordingly, because the Examiner has not established by a
preponderance of the evidence that Hearne necessarily discloses “a knife
edge of a width of 0.42 inches or less,” we do not sustain Rejection I.
Rejections II, III, and IV – Obviousness
The method of claim 8 utilizes, and the system of claim 16 includes, a
pusher pin with a tip portion having a knife edge of a width of 0.42 inches or
less. Rejection II (directed to claims 6 and 7), Rejection III (directed to
claims 8-11 and 13-15), and Rejection IV (directed to claims 16-24) rely
upon the Examiner’s findings as reflected in Rejection I. See Ans. 4-6.
Accordingly, for the reasons expressed with respect to Rejection I, we do not
sustain Rejections II, III, and IV.
Appeal 2011-003079
Application 11/538,302

6
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-11, 13-20, and
22-24.

REVERSED

mls