Ex Parte Kurita et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2016

12890281 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016)

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.
12/890,281 09/24/2010 Shinichi Kurita 014609/DISPLAY/AHRDWR/DP 8019
44257 7590 12/30/2016
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - Applied Materials
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
EXAMINER
LOWE, MICHAEL S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3652
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2016 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 SHINICHI KURITA, TAKAYUKI MATSUMOTO,
SUHAIL ANWAR, and MAKOTO INAGAWA
Appeal 2015-000446
Application 12/890,281
Technology Center 3600
Before JILL D. HILL, PAUL J. KORNICZKY, and BRENT M. DOUGAL,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants, Shinichi Kurita et al.,1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—24. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Applied Materials, Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-000446
Application 12/890,281
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a “transfer robot for use in the transfer and
support of large area flat media, such as a large area substrate.” Spec. 12.
Claims 1 and 10 are the independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A transfer robot for use in a vacuum environment, the transfer
robot comprising:
a lift assembly having a first drive assembly for moving a
first platform relative to a second platform in a first linear
direction;
an end effector assembly disposed on the second platform
and movable in a second linear direction by a second drive
assembly, the second linear direction being orthogonal to the first
linear direction, wherein the end effector assembly comprises
two independently movable end effector modules;
a plurality of hermetically sealed conduits movably
coupled between the first platform and the second platform and
coupled to the end effector assembly;
a first image sensor coupled to the lift assembly in a
position below the end effector modules, wherein the end
effector modules are movable relative to the first image sensor;
and a lighting device associated with the first image
sensor.
In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relied upon the
following prior art:
REFERENCES
Schneider ’400 US 4,648,400
US 5,393,931
US 5,394,208
US 5,570,992
US 5,689,734
Mar. 10, 1987
Feb. 28, 1995
Feb. 28, 1995
Nov. 5, 1996
Nov. 18, 1997
July 10, 2001
July 4, 2006
Guenther
Campbell
Lemelson
Bauer
Hosokawa
Bash
US 6,257,045 B1
US 7,072,739 B2
2
Appeal 2015-000446
Application 12/890,281
Woodstock US 7,184,076 B2 Feb. 27, 2007
Tanaka US 7,524,712 B2 Apr. 28, 2009
Uratani US 2008/0023293 B1 Jan. 31, 2008
Albin US 8,141,924 B2 Mar. 27, 2012
Schneider ’806 US 2003/0053806 Mar. 20, 2003
Borden US 2005/0088187 A1 Apr. 28, 2005
Habibi US 2007/0073439 A1 Mar. 29, 2007
Fukuma US 20100196124 A1 Aug. 5, 2010
Masami JP 10-335413 Dec. 18, 1998
Nidec JP 2006-224297 Aug. 31,2006
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claims 1—3, 6—10, 13—18, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Masami, Fukuma, Albin,
Borden, Tanaka, Lemelson, Hosokawa, Habibi, and Bash.
2. Claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 12—17, 19, 20, 23, and 24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Masami, Fukuma, Albin,
Borden, Tanaka, Femelson, Hosokawa,, Bash, Guenther, Bauer, Schneider
’400, and Campbell.
3. Claims 5, 12, 19, 20, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Masami, Fukuma, Albin, Borden,
Tanaka, Femelson, Hosokawa, Habibi, Bash, Bauer, Woodstock, and
Campbell.
4. Claims 1—24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Masami, Fukuma, Albin, Borden, Tanaka, Femelson,
Hosokawa, Habibi, Bash, Guenther, Bauer, Woodstock, Campbell, Nidec,
and Uratani.
Appellants seek our review of these rejections.
3
Appeal 2015-000446
Application 12/890,281
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1 and 10 recite “a plurality of hermetically sealed
conduits movably coupled between the first platform and the second
platform.” During prosecution of patent application Serial No. 12/890,281,
and in the four rejections referenced above, the Examiner asserted that
Fukuma disclosed this limitation. See Ans. 10. After the Final Office
Action and in this appeal, Appellants assert that Fukuma is not a proper prior
art reference under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because the filing date of the priority
application of the pending application (September 29, 2009) is before the
effective filing date of Fukuma (December 24, 2009). Appeal Br. 7. The
Examiner agrees. Ans. 10.
With Fukuma no longer available as prior art, Appellants argue that
none of the other cited prior art disclose “hermetically sealed conduits” as
recited in claims 1 and 10, and, thus, the Examiner does not present a prima
facie case of obviousness. Appeal Br. 7—8; Reply Br. 2—3. In response, the
Examiner asserts that the four rejections still stand, even without Fukuma,
because other references (e.g., Nidec, Schneider ’806, Schneider ‘400,
Guenther, Bauer, and Campbell) show that hermetic sealing of conduits and
enclosures is well known. Ans. 10—12. Although the Examiner is correct
that these references generally disclose hermetic sealing of different
structures, the Examiner does not identify any reference which discloses
“conduits” — hermetically sealed or otherwise — “movably coupled
between first and second platforms” as recited in claims 1 and 10. Thus, the
Examiner has not shown a prima facie case of obviousness, and the
rejections of independent claims 1 and 10, and claims 2—9 and 11—24 which
depend therefrom, cannot be sustained.
4
Appeal 2015-000446
Application 12/890,281
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—24 are
REVERSED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
REVERSED
5