Ex Parte Seeli et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 28, 2005

09947454 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 28, 2005)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte ROGER SEELI,
MAURO PEDRAZZINI,
and
VOLKER DERFLINGER
__________

Appeal No. 2005-1089
Application No. 09/947,454
___________

ON BRIEF
___________

Before OWENS, TIMM, and DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judges.

DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
(2004) from the examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 through
25 (final Office action mailed on October 23, 2003) in the
above-identified application. Claims 26 and 27, the only other
pending claims, have been withdrawn from further consideration
pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.142(b) (2003)(effective Dec. 22, 1959).
(Id. at 5-6.)

Appeal No. 2005-1089
Application No. 09/947,454

2
The subject matter on appeal relates to a vacuum system for
the treatment of work pieces. Further details of this appealed
subject matter are recited in representative claim 1, the sole
independent claim on appeal, reproduced below:
1. A vacuum system for the treatment of work
pieces comprising in combination:
a. an evacuatable treatment chamber having a
bottom wall and having a central axis substantially
perpendicular to said bottom wall, said treatment
chamber also having at least one lateral wall;
b. a low voltage arc discharge arrangement
disposed within said treatment chamber substantially
along the central axis thereof;
c. a receiving device extending through the
bottom wall of said treatment chamber about the
central axis of said treatment chamber, the receiving
device having opposing upper and lower ends, the upper
end of said receiving device being disposed within
said treatment chamber;
d. a work piece support on which work pieces are
mounted, said work piece support resting upon, and
being separably linked to the upper end of said
receiving device for allowing the work piece support,
and the work pieces mounted thereto, to be lifted
vertically relative to the receiving device, said work
piece support having a cross section; and
e. said treatment chamber having a laterally-
extending closeable opening, said closeable opening
having a cross section that is greater than the cross
section of said work piece support so that said work
piece support, and the work pieces mounted thereto,
can be removed from said treatment chamber through
said closeable opening by raising said work piece
support off of the upper end of said receiving device.

Appeal No. 2005-1089
Application No. 09/947,454

3
The examiner relies on the following prior art references
as evidence of unpatentability:
Ramalingam et al. 4,673,477 Jun. 16, 1987
(Ramalingam)

Ramm et al. 5,192,578 Mar. 9, 1993
(Ramm)

Straemke 5,216,223 Jun. 1, 1993

Song et al. 5,885,355 Mar. 23, 1999
(Song)

Blalock et al. 6,056,850 May 2, 2000
(Blalock)

The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:
I. claims 1 through 3, 5 through 8, 19, and 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Ramm (answer at 4);
II. claims 1 through 8, 12, 14, and 19 through 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ramm (id. at 4-
5);
III. claims 9 through 11 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ramm in view of Straemke (id. at 5-
6);
IV. claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ramm in view of Song (id. at 6);
Appeal No. 2005-1089
Application No. 09/947,454

4
V. claims 16 through 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ramm in view of Blalock (id. at 6-
7); and
VI. claims 22 through 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ramm in view of Ramalingam (id. at
7).
We reverse these rejections.
Regarding the examiner’s rejections of appealed claim 1
over Ramm, the principal prior art reference, the appellants
argue (substitute appeal brief filed on July 1, 2004 at 7):
In contrast [to the claimed invention], the Ramm
patent does not disclose a work piece support which
is: 1) separably linked to a receiving device; 2)
removable from the treatment chamber via a laterally-
extending closeable opening; and wherein 3) the work
piece support is separated from the receiving device
by raising it off the upper end of the receiving
device, as provided in claim 1 of the application.
Indeed, in Ramm, it appears that the electrically
conducting supports (35) that are used to rotatably
support the work pieces (3) are never separable from
the rotary table (37) to which they are coupled, that
the rotary table is never separable from the vacuum
chamber, and that Ramm’s vacuum chamber lacks any
laterally-extending closeable opening through which
any of such components could be removed.

(See also id. at 6 and reply brief filed on October 4, 2004.)
The examiner, on the other hand, alleges: “Regarding
‘separably linked’ it is inherent that the work support could be
Appeal No. 2005-1089
Application No. 09/947,454

5
separated from the receiving device.” (Answer at 4.) The
examiner further contends: “Even if the applicant were [sic] not
persuaded that Ramm et al inherently disclose the work piece
support being separable, it could at least be said that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make
them separable for the advantage of operability and
maintainability.” (Id. at 9.) As to the “laterally-extending
closeable opening” limitation recited in appealed claim 1 and
the appellants’ arguments based thereon, the examiner states
that Ramm’s annulus 50 is such an opening and that the “issue
[raised by the appellants with respect to the recited opening]
is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.” (Id. at 4 and
9.) In what appears to be an alternative theory, the examiner
contends (id. at 8-9):
Ramm et al disclose that the work piece support
Fig 3-35 has a guide pin like structure in a hole.
Work piece support is not shown one piece with
receiving part 37. Also, if taken out, it would be
more convenient to use the opening where targets are
installed (Fig 4-49) during processing, in a manner as
disclosed in Fig 2 of applicant’s specification.

We hold that the examiner has not established a prima facie
case of unpatentability against the appealed claims. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
Appeal No. 2005-1089
Application No. 09/947,454

6
Ramm describes a vapor deposition installation including: a
vacuum chamber 19 with an evacuation port 20 and a bottom 29; a
low-voltage arc 52; six electrically conducting supports 35
disposed rotatably about the chamber axis on a rotary table 37
and connected in an electrically conducting manner to holders
36; crucible 30; and a target 51 positioned within an annulus
50. (Column 2, line 52 to column 3, line 35; Figures 3 and 4.)
Even assuming that Ramm’s six electrically conducting
supports 35 are separable from rotary table 37, there is no
teaching in the reference as to any opening that would permit
supports 35 to be removed from the vacuum chamber 19, let alone
a laterally-extending closeable opening through which the
support may be removed by raising the support off of an upper
end of a receiving device as recited in appealed claim 1. While
the examiner appears to identify the area in proximity to Ramm’s
element 49 as a possible laterally-extending closeable opening
(answer at 9), element 49 is described as one of six devices
with a heat exchanger for cooling. (Column 3, lines 26-29.)
Because the examiner has not adequately accounted for this
difference, we cannot affirm.
The remaining prior art references, namely Straemke, Song,
Blalock, and Ramalingam, have been cited for purposes other than
Appeal No. 2005-1089
Application No. 09/947,454

7
element “e” of appealed claim 1. Accordingly, we do not have to
address them.
In sum, we reverse the examiner’s rejections under: (i) 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) of appealed claims 1 through 3, 5 through 8, 19,
and 21 as anticipated by Ramm; (ii) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
appealed claims 1 through 8, 12, 14, and 19 through 21 as
unpatentable over Ramm; (iii) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of appealed
claims 9 through 11 and 15 as unpatentable over Ramm in view of
Straemke; (iv) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of appealed claim 13 as
unpatentable over Ramm in view of Song; (v) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
of appealed claims 16 through 18 as unpatentable over Ramm in
view of Blalock; and (vi) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of appealed claims
22 through 25 as unpatentable over Ramm in view of Ramalingam.

Appeal No. 2005-1089
Application No. 09/947,454

8
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED

Terry J. Owens )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Catherine Timm )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Romulo H. Delmendo )
Administrative Patent Judge )

RHD/kis
Appeal No. 2005-1089
Application No. 09/947,454

9
CAHILL, SUTTON & THOMAS P.L.C.
155 PARK ONE
2141 EAST HIGHLAND AVENUE
PHOENIX, AZ 85016