Ex Parte Rebstock

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

12817310 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 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.
12/817,310 06/17/2010 Lutz Rebstock 1229P015331-US(PAR) 5277
106446 7590
Perman & Green, LLP
99 Hawley Lane
Stratford, CT 06614
EXAMINER
CARRILLO, BIBI SHARED AN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1711
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2017 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 REBSTOCK1
Appeal 2016-003195
Application 12/817,310
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 7—11, 19—21, 24, 27, 28, and
31—39 as unpatentable over AAPA (Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art at Spec
20 and Fig. 12) in view of Miyamoto (JP 2005-109523, published Apr. 21,
2005, as translated). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
1 Dynamic Micro Systems, Semiconductor Equipment GmbH is identified as
the real party in interest. App. Br. (i.e., filed August 6, 2015) 3.
Appeal 2016-003195
Application 12/817,310
We AFFIRM.
Appellant claims a method for transferring an article that includes
multiple portions (e.g., a body portion and a lid portion) comprising moving
the article between a first station and a second station, wherein the article is
in an assembled configuration at the first station, wherein the moving step
comprises passing through a member during the movement, wherein the
member disassembles the article (independent claim 7; see also independent
claim 21), and wherein the multiple portions are disposed in separate
locations in the second station (independent claim 7; see also independent
claims 21 and 24).
A copy of representative claim 7, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
7. A method for transferring an article comprising multiple
portions, the method comprising:
moving an article, by a transfer mechanism, directly
between the first station and a second station;
wherein the article comprises multiple portions in an
assembled configuration at the first station;
wherein moving the article from a first station to a
second station comprises passing through a member during the
movement from the first station to the second station, wherein
the member disassembles the article;
wherein the multiple portions are disposed in separate
locations in the second station.
Appellant does not present separate arguments specifically directed to
the dependent claims under rejection (App. Br. 6—9). Therefore, the
dependent claims will stand or fall with their parent independent claims 7,
21, and 24.
2
Appeal 2016-003195
Application 12/817,310
We sustain the § 103 rejection of the appealed claims for the reasons
expressed in the Final Action, the Answer, and below.
Regarding each of independent claim 7, 21, and 24, the Examiner
finds that AAPA discloses a method wherein an article is moved between
first and second stations, wherein multiple portions of the article are
disassembled and disposed in separate locations in the second station (Final
Action 5; see also Ans. 2—3). Regarding independent claims 7 and 21
specifically, the Examiner additionally finds that AAPA teaches performing
these functions via multiple transfer mechanisms rather than a single transfer
mechanism (i.e., a single robot) but that Miyamoto teaches “using a single
robot to perform multiple functions, such as disassembly of the pod,
transport and cleaning of the pod, and assembly of the pod” (Final Action 5
(citing Miyamoto 116); see also Ans. 3 (citing Miyamoto 127)). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to have modified the
applicant’s admission of the prior art, to include a single robot, as taught by
Miyamoto ... to perform multiple functions” (Final Action 5; see also Ans.
3).
Concerning each of the independent claims, Appellant disputes the
Examiner’s finding that AAPA discloses “the multiple portions are disposed
in separate locations in the second station” as required by each of the
independent claims (App. Br. 7). According to Appellant, this requirement
“refers to different locations of a single cleaning station (the second station)
[whereas AAPA] . . . teaches separate cleaning stations for the lid and the
body” (id.).
3
Appeal 2016-003195
Application 12/817,310
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Contrary to Appellant’s
belief, the independent claims do not require that the recited second station
consists of a single cleaning station. In this regard, the Examiner responds
to the argument by explaining that the claimed second station is interpreted
as being satisfied by the second station 100 of AAPA Figure 12 which
comprises multiple cleaning stations and which shows multiple portions
(101B, 101 A) disposed in separate locations in the second station 100 (Ans.
6). Significantly, the Examiner’s explanation is not disputed by Appellant in
the Reply Brief.
Regarding claims 7 and 21 specifically, Appellant further contends
that it would not have been obvious to unlock or disassemble the AAPA
article during movement to the second station (App. Br. 7—8). In particular,
Appellant contends that “the innovative step of unlocking/disassembling the
article on the fly gives significant advantages to its user(s) and is not obvious
in light of the cited references” {id. at 8).
The fundamental deficiency of Appellant’s contention is that it is not
embellished with any discussion of the Miyamoto reference upon which the
Examiner expressly relies for concluding that the subject matter of claims 7
and 21 would have been obvious. For this reason, the Appeal Brief fails to
reveal any error in the Examiner’s findings and conclusions based on
Miyamoto.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant presents multiple new arguments that
Miyamoto contains no teaching or suggestion of the subject matter required
4
Appeal 2016-003195
Application 12/817,310
by claims 7 and 21 (Reply Br. 2-A). Because they are new and good cause
has not been shown, these new arguments will not be considered for
purposes of the present appeal. 37 CFR § 41.41(b)(2) (2015).
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
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
5