Ex Parte Schnappenberger

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 12, 2016

12757765 (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121757,765 04/09/2010
26290 7590 05/16/2016
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP,
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Frank SCHNAPPENBERGER
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
ZIMR/Ol 70US (044436) 3410
EXAMINER
BAND, MICHAEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1754
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/16/2016 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):
PSDocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
pair_eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
jcardenas@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRANK SCHNAPPENBERGER
Appeal2014-007423
Application 12/757,765
Technology Center 1700
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's August
16, 2013 decision finally rejecting claims 1, 3-15, and 17-20 ("Final Act.").
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as Applied Materials, Inc.,
(Appeal Br. 3).
Appeal2014-007423
Application 12/757,765
CLAHvIED SUBJECT ivIATTER
Appellant's invention is directed to a device for supporting a rotatable
target of a deposition apparatus for sputtering material (Abstract). The device
includes a main body, a first fluid conduit in the main body for receiving fluid
from the rotatable target, and a second fluid conduit in the main body for
providing fluid to the rotatable target (id.). Details of the claimed device are set
forth in representative claim 1, which is reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix:
1. A device for supporting a rotatable target of a deposition
apparatus for sputtering material on a substrate, the rotatable
target defining a rotational axis, and the device comprising:
- a main body;
- a first fluid conduit formed in the main body in fluid
communication with an inlet for receiving a fluid from the
rotatable target, the first fluid conduit being oriented in the
main body in a direction orthogonal to the rotational axis of the
target and having a first minimum axial co-ordinate and a first
maximum axial co-ordinate; and
- a second fluid conduit formed in the main body in fluid
communication with an outlet for providing a fluid to the
rotatable target, the second conduit being oriented in the main
body in a direction orthogonal to the rotational axis and having
a second minimum axial co-ordinate and a second maximum
axial coordinate;
wherein the first fluid conduit and the second fluid
conduit are spaced apart relative to each other and at least one
of the first fluid conduit and the second fluid conduit extends
radially outward from the rotational axis, and at least one of the
second minimum axial co-ordinate and the second maximum
axial co-ordinate lies between the first minimum axial co-
ordinate and the first maximum axial co-ordinate.
2
Appeal2014-007423
Application 12/757,765
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 10, 12-15, and 17-19 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Wurczinger,2 as evidenced by
Crowley. 3
II. Claims 6-8, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over by Wurczinger, as evidenced by Crowley, and further
in view of Henrich. 4
DISCUSSION
Appellant does not offer separate arguments with respect to Rejection
II (Appeal Br. 13), and in connection with Rejection I, Appellant offers
arguments only with respect to claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 9-13). Accordingly,
our discussion will focus on the anticipation rejection of claim 1 over
Wurczinger, as evidenced by Crowley.
"A prior art reference anticipates a patent claim under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) if it discloses every claim limitation." In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d
1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Cox Fibernet
Va., Inc., 602 F.3d 1325, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). In this instance,
Appellant argues that Wurczinger fails to teach a main body having fluid
conduits formed in the main body (Appeal Br. 9).
The Examiner finds that the device of claim 1 is disclosed by
Wurczinger's FIG. 1, an annotated version of which is reproduced below:
2 Wurczinger, U.S. Patent Pub. 2005/0178662 Al, published August 18, 2005.
3 Crowley, U.S. Patent No. 8,182,662 B2, issued May 22, 2012.
4 Henrich et al., U.S. Patent Pub. 2007/0144891 Al, published June 28, 2006.
3
Appeal2014-007423
Application 12/757,765
FIG.1
Annotated FIG. 1 shows a schematic representation of Wurczinger's coating
installation.
The Examiner finds that connection fitting 3 in Wurczinger's FIG. 1
corresponds to the claimed "main body" (Final Act. 3). Appellant contests this
finding, arguing that connection fitting 3 does not correspond to the claimed
"main body" (Appeal Br. 9). More details of Wurczinger's apparatus are
shown in FIG. 2, an annotated version of which is reproduced below:
FIG. 2
----............................................. ____ ..................................................... ..
4
'.::.~:~:~·:;~.:.:~;!:•::·: ~;·~;:.::~·;: ~:
:.>.:..V:':-~$~~..:..· :·~ ·~S. ~:) t.:·~ ·~
.::<~: :"'::"'::·:-"!.:.~ ···,;.:..:::: :":: :}:"::.:h' ,.
Appeal2014-007423
Application 12/757,765
Thus, a key issue in this appeal is whether Appellant has shown error
in the Examiner's finding that connection fitting 3 can properly correspond
to the claimed "main body," including at least being a part of the claimed
main body. "[T]he PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable
construction consistent with the specification .... Therefore, we look to the
specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise
apply a broad interpretation." In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d
1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). "[A]s applicants may amend claims to narrow
their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to
the applicant or patentee." Id. To the extent possible, claim terms are given
their ordinary and customary meaning, as they would be understood by one
of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention. Phillips v.
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane).
Idiosyncratic language, highly technical terms, or terms coined by the
inventor are best understood by reference to the specification. Id. at 1315-
16. Extrinsic evidence such as dictionary definitions may be utilized when
construing claim terms, so long as the extrinsic evidence does not contradict
any definition found in the specification, including the claims and written
description. Cf Advanced Fiber Tech. (AFT) Trust v. J & L Fiber Servs.,
Inc., 674 F.3d 1365, 1374--75 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
The Examiner does not offer a specific construction for the claim term
"main body," but states that the claimed "main body" does not have to be of
a particular shape (Ans. 7), and finds that the Wurczinger' s connection
fitting 3 corresponds to the claimed main body (Ans. 7-8). Appellant
contends that Wurczinger's connection fitting 3 cannot be a "main body" as
set forth in claim 1 because, in part, connection fitting 3 does not support the
5
Appeal2014-007423
Application 12/757,765
target in Wurczinger's apparatus (Reply Br. 4). Appellant's argument is not
persuasive.
Claim 1 recites that the claimed device is "for supporting a rotatable
target ... " and that the device comprises a "main body" and two fluid
conduits formed in the main body. The claim language therefore suggests
that the "main body" is not synonymous with the claimed "device for
supporting a rotatable target." The Specification states that a "device for
supporting a rotatable target" is a device which is adapted to mechanically
support a rotatable target (Spec. i-f 33). Thus, the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the term "main body" does not require that the "main body"
support the target, which may be supported by other components of the
"device for supporting a rotatable target." As noted by the Examiner (Ans.
7), the Specification does not specify any particular function for the "main
body" as recited in the claim, other than it be part of the claimed "device for
supporting a rotatable target .... "
Appellant contends that Wurczinger' s connection fitting 3 cannot
correspond to the claimed main body because it is merely a cover that
houses the drive unit and fluid tubes (Appeal Br. 9). However, as discussed
above, the Specification does not ascribe any particular functionality to the
claimed "main body," other than housing the fluid conduits (which
Wurczinger' s connection fitting 3 does). Appellant correctly notes that in
construing a claim term, the Specification is usually dispositive and is the
single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term (Reply Br. 3).
However, as discussed above, the Specification does not provide sufficient
explanation of what constitutes the "main body" to exclude Wurczinger' s
connection fitting 3. Appellant also asserts that "[i]t is well known in the
6
Appeal2014-007423
Application 12/757,765
industry, as described in the [S]pecification and shown in Figures 9 and 12
of the current application that a main body that is designed to support a
target is not ... merely a cover or housing" (Reply Br. 3). However,
Appellant does not point to persuasive evidentiary support for this assertion.
Finally, Appellant claims that "the term 'main' is used to describe the body
as the main body of the device that supports the target and a necessary
element for the operation of the target and chamber" (Reply Br. 4). Again,
the Specification does not ascribe the supporting function to the "main
body," but merely to the device as a whole.
Accordingly, we do not discern error in the Examiner's finding that
Wurczinger's connection fitting 3 corresponds to the claimed "main body."
It follows that the Examiner's findings that Wurczinger' s fluid conduits 4
and 5 correspond to the claimed first and second fluid conduits which are
formed in the main body (i.e., inside connection fitting 3 and orthogonal to
the rotation axis, as claimed). The Examiner also correctly determines that
the recitation that the claimed first fluid conduit is "for receiving a fluid" and
that the claimed second fluid conduit is "for providing a fluid" are
statements of intended use, and Wurczinger' s device is capable of
functioning in that manner (Final Act. 3).
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 9, 10, 12-15, and 17-19
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Wurczinger, as evidenced by
Crowley.
7
Appeal2014-007423
Application 12/757,765
We AFFIRivI the rejection of claims 6-8, 11, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over by Wurczinger, as evidenced
by Crowley, and further in view of Henrich.
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8