Ex Parte SCHNAPPENBERGERDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 12, 201612757765 (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation