Ex Parte Pickering et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 2, 2015

11809584 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2015)

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.
11/809,584 06/01/2007 Michael A. Pickering 52518 9950
7590 02/03/2015
John J. Piskorski
Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials LLC
455 Forest Street
Marlborough, MA 01752
EXAMINER
JAYNE, DARNELL M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3649
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/03/2015 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 MICHAEL A. PICKERING,
JITENDRA S. GOELA,
JAMIE L. TRIBA,
and
THOMAS PAYNE
____________

Appeal 2012-010352
Application 11/809,584
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, JAMES P. CALVE, and JILL D. HILL,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Michael A. Pickering, et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1–6. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2012-010352
Application 11/809,584

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, represents the claimed
subject matter.
1. An apparatus comprising a plurality of rods secured at
opposite ends to respective endplates by joints having flanges
with a fillet radius.

REJECTION
Claims 1–6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Payne (US Patent No. 6,811,040 B2, issued Nov. 2, 2004),
Brandenburg (US Patent No. 6,378,538 B1, issued Apr. 30, 2002), and
Manzon (US Patent Pub. No. 2006/0108795 A1, pub. May 25, 2006) or
Manzon (US Patent No. 6,860,297 B2, issued Mar. 1, 2005). Ans. 5.
OPINION
Appellants argue claims 1–6 as a group. We select independent claim
1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Claims 2–6
stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Payne teaches a wafer holding apparatus
comprising a plurality of rods 12 having tenons 22 secured to an inside face
of respective end plates 14, but does not teach a fillet radius where the
endplates join to the rods. Ans. 5. The Examiner finds that Brandenburg
teaches a fillet radius joint where rods 60 join end plate 22, although the
term “fillet radius” is not specifically used. Id. The Examiner then finds
that the Manzon references teach that a fillet radius joint is desirable to
prevent/deter joint corrosion, “illustrating that fillet radius joints are known
in the mechanical arts.” Id. The Examiner notes that none of the pending
claims “address why a fillet radius is particularly desirable,” and that the
Appeal 2012-010352
Application 11/809,584

3
Manzon references are only being used for the specific use of the term “fillet
radius joint” to illustrate that this term is known in the mechanical arts. Id.
at 5–6.
Appellants admit that “[t]he Figures of the Brandenburg et al. patent
disclose what appears to be a fillet radius joint attaching the top end 60 of
struts 16a-h to interior surface 22. . . .” Appeal Br. 10. Appellants argue,
however, that Brandenburg is silent regarding “a fillet radius joint, let alone
any advantage of such a joint,” because “there is no description in the
specification as to the specific types of joints being employed or any
advantage to such joints,” such that Brandenburg does not “teach or suggest
addressing any type of problem by the structural form of a joint, let alone a
fillet radius joint.” Id.
Brandenburg shows, for example in the partial views of Figures 3 and
4, a rounded corner where struts (rods) 16 join endplate 14. Absent an
explanation by Appellants regarding why Brandenburg’s rounded corner is
not a fillet radius, we agree with the Examiner’s finding to that effect in
view of Appellants’ disclosure of a fillet radius of similar configuration. See
Spec. 5, ll. 7–8 (“A fillet radius r of arc shaped flange 10 of joint 20 of the
semiconductor wafer holding apparatus is illustrated in Figure 1.”); Fig. 1.
The fact that Brandenburg does not explicitly describe the term “fillet
radius” does not preclude the Examiner from finding that the depicted
rounded corner is a fillet radius. We are not persuaded by this argument.
Appellants also argue that Payne and Brandenburg are not properly
combinable because they are non-analogous art. Appeal Br. 10. According
to Appellants, Payne and Brandenburg are not from the same field of
endeavor, because Payne is directed to an apparatus for holding a wafer to
Appeal 2012-010352
Application 11/809,584

4
be coated under harsh conditions, and Brandenburg is directed to an
apparatus for holding a wafer for cleaning residue therefrom. Id. at 10–11.
Appellants also contend that Payne addresses a different problem than
Brandenburg, because Payne addresses the problem of holding a wafer
during harsh conditions for coating, whereas Brandenburg is directed to
holding a wafer during cleaning. Id. at 11.
The Examiner responds that Payne and Brandenburg are in the same
field of endeavor. Ans. 6. As admitted by Appellants, both Payne and
Brandenburg are directed to holding a wafer. Even if Payne holds the wafer
for coating and Brandenburg holds a wafer for cleaning, both references
teach an apparatus for holding wafers and thus are within the same field of
endeavor, and Appellants’ field of endeavor is also an apparatus for holding
wafers.
Appellants then argue that “[t]he Manzon documents do not make up
for the deficiencies of Payne” and Brandenburg because the Examiner has
not “designated the particular part of either Manzon document where a fillet
radius joint is described and prevents or deters corrosion,” that there is no
paragraph 18 of Manzon ’297, and that paragraph 18 of Manzon ’795 does
not recite a fillet radius. Appeal Br. 12.
Initially, the Examiner does not need to rely on the teaching of the
Manzon references in order for the combination to meet all of the claimed
limitations, because Brandenburg already teaches the claimed fillet radius as
explained above. Additionally, the Examiner’s quoted disclosure is found at
column 5, lines 31–40 of Manzon ’297. The Examiner’s erroneous citation
does not change the fact that Manzon ’297 teaches a fillet radius, and
Appellants were on notice of the entire teaching of Manzon ’297, not simply
Appeal 2012-010352
Application 11/809,584

5
the teaching located at the Examiner’s (erroneous) pinpoint cite. We are not
persuaded by Appellants’ argument.
For the reasons set forth above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1–6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Payne, Brandenburg, and the Manzon references.
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

hh