Ex Parte Foad et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2017

12703897 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 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.
12/703,897 02/11/2010 Majeed A. Foad 013794/ATG/ATG/ESONG 5063
44257 7590 02/01/2017
PATTFRSON & SHFRTDAN T T P - - AnnlieH Materials EXAMINER
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
BERNATZ, KEVIN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1785
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2017 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 MAJEED A. FOAD, JACOB NEWMAN,
JOSE ANTONIO MARIN, DANIEL HOFFMAN,
STEPHEN MOFFATT, AND STEVEN VERHAVERBEKE
Appeal 2015-006884
Application 12/703,897
Technology Center 1700
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, JULIA HEANEY, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1—7 and 31—42 of Application
12/703,897 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. (April 8, 2014).
Appellants1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE.
1 Applied Materials, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-006884
Application 12/703,897
BACKGROUND
The claims at issue generally relate to an apparatus for processing
magnetic substrates. Such magnetic substrates may be useful in the
production of hard disk drives for use as storage media for computers and
related devices. Spec. 2.
Claim 1 is representative of the pending claims and is reproduced
below with the most relevant portion bolded for emphasis:
1. An apparatus for processing magnetic substrates,
comprising:
a processing chamber;
a substrate support platter disposed in an interior of the
processing chamber, the substrate support platter comprising
a plurality of laterally displaced substrate locations;
means for flipping substrates to enable exposing at least
two major surfaces of each substrate to a processing environment
in the processing chamber; and
means for modifying the magnetic properties of the at least
two major surfaces of each substrate by exposing the surfaces to
plasma ion implantation in the processing chamber.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1—7 and 31—42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Binns et al. (US 7,675,048 B2, iss. Mar. 9, 2010,
and corresponding US 2008/0218772 Al, pub. Sept. 11, 2008, hereinafter
"Binns") in view of Fukushima et al. (US 2010/0165504 Al, pub. July 1,
2
Appeal 2015-006884
Application 12/703,897
2010, and corresponding WO 2008-156189 Al, pub. Dec. 24, 2008,
hereinafter "Fukushima"), Choi et al. (US 7,670,529 B2, iss. Mar. 2, 2010,
and corresponding US 2007/0132152, pub. June 14, 2007, hereinafter
"Choi") and one or both of Takeyama et al. (US 6,319,373 B2, iss. Nov. 20,
2001, hereinafter "Takeyama") and/or Peinovich (US 8,177,469 B2, iss.
May 15, 2012, hereinafter "Peinovich"). Final Act. 2—5.
2. Claims 1—7, 34, and 37^40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Binns in view of Fukushima, Choi, and
Takeyama and/or Peinovich and further in view of Watanabe et al. (U.S.
Patent 7,824,497 B2, iss. Nov. 2, 2010, and corresponding US
2008/0216744 Al, pub. Sept. 11, 2008, hereinafter "Watanabe"). Id. at 5.
3. Claims 31—33, 35, 36, 39, 41, and 42 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Binns in view of Fukushima,
Choi, and Watanabe, and one or both of Takeyama and Peinovich, and
further in view of one or both of Bluck et al. (US 6,368,678 Bl, iss. Apr. 9,
2002, hereinafter “Bluck”) and/or Kraus et al. (US 2008/0076268 Al, pub.
Mar. 27, 2008, hereinafter “Kraus”). Id. at 5.
DISCUSSION
Appellants argue that each of the rejections is erroneous due to the
absence of any teaching of a “substrate support platter comprising a plurality
of laterally displaced substrate locations” in the cited references. This
argument is applicable to all claims of all rejections and Appellants do not
present any additional arguments. Accordingly, the claims will stand or fall
together.
In rejecting the claims, the Examiner does not rely upon prior art that
teaches an embodiment where the plurality of substrates are laterally
3
Appeal 2015-006884
Application 12/703,897
displaced, but finds that “functional equivalents” of such an embodiment are
taught in the prior art:
Binns et al. disclose a substrate support end effector (taken
as equivalent to the claimed 'platter': element 120) comprising a
plurality of substrates, but none of the above references disclose
an embodiment wherein the plurality of substrates are held
laterally displaced, versus vertically displaced.
However, the Examiner notes that a means for holding a
plurality of substrates (i.e. 'platter', 'end effectors', 'platens',
'cassettes', 'nesting trays', etc.), wherein the substrates are either
vertically displaced or laterally displaced are functionally
equivalent in terms of 'platters' capable of holding a plurality of
substrates.
Final Act. 3^4; Answer 4—5.
“In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an
obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art.”
MPEP § 2144.06, 9th ed., (Nov. 2015). The Examiner merely asserts that
there are a number of names for structures that may support a substrate.
Answer 16—17 (“One of ordinary skill in the art would interpret 'platter',
'pallet', 'chuck', 'wafer carrier', 'cassette', 'nesting tray', etc. in a functionally
equivalent manner as they are all means for carrying one or more
substrates”). This is insufficient to show equivalence. See, e.g., In re
Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (finding that the Patent Office
had established an expectation of equivalence of two compounds where two
prior art references taught that they had similar properties).
In the Answer, the Examiner cites to certain art made of record and
not relied upon for the proposition that “laterally displaced substrates are old
in the art.” Final Act. 9—10; Answer 15—16. Whether or not such art may be
4
Appeal 2015-006884
Application 12/703,897
relied upon,2 it demonstrates, at most, that laterally displaced substrates3
were known. It does not demonstrate the equivalence of the claimed
“platter[s] comprising a plurality of laterally displaced substrate locations”
and the support structures of the cited prior art. Nor has the Examiner stated
a reason to combine such art with the relied upon prior art.
Accordingly, we do not adopt the Examiner’s finding that the
vertically oriented support structure of Binns is the functional equivalent of
the claimed platter comprising a plurality of laterally displaced substrate
locations
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—7 and 31—42 is
reversed.
REVERSED
2 See In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3 (CCPA 1970) (“Where a
reference is relied on to support a rejection, whether or not in a ‘minor
capacity, ’ there would appear to be no excuse for not positively including
the reference in the statement of the rejection”).
3 “Laterally displaced” is understood to mean substrates laying horizontally
on a horizontally oriented support (Spec. Fig. 9A).
5