Persimmon Technologies, Corp.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 22, 2021

2021000964 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2021)

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.
15/212,441 07/18/2016 Scott Wilkas 101A.0029.U1(US) 5170
29683 7590 10/22/2021
Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC
4 RESEARCH DRIVE, Suite 202
SHELTON, CT 06484-6212
EXAMINER
MCCLAIN, GERALD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3652
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/22/2021 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):
USPTO@HSPATENT.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SCOTT WILKAS, MARTIN HOSEK, and
JACOB LIPCON
____________

Appeal 2021-000964
Application 15/212,441
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–10, 12, 14, and 16.2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2020). The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
“Persimmon Technologies Corporation, which is a wholly owned subsidiary
of Sumitomo Heavy Industries, Ltd.” Appeal Br. 1.
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the prior art rejections of claims 4, 7, 11, 13,
and 15. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2021-000964
Application 15/212,441

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The Appellant’s invention “relate[s] generally to a robot arm and,
more particularly, to controlling movement of a substrate by a robot arm.”
Spec. ¶ 2.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with added bracketing for reference:
1. A substrate transport arm comprising:
[(a)] a first link;
[(b)] a second link rotatably connected to the first link;
[(c)] a third link rotatably connected to the second link at a wrist
joint, where the third link comprises an end effector configured
to support a substrate thereon; and
[(d)] a mechanical transmission comprising a pulley, where the
mechanical transmission is connected to the third link to control
rotation of the third link on the second link, where the mechanical
transmission is configured to control rotation of the third link as
a function of an angle between the first and second links such
that, as the first and second links are rotated relative to each
other, the wrist joint follows a wrist path which comprises a
curved portion, and where a center of the substrate supported on
the end effector is moved along a substantially straight substrate
path as the wrist joint follows the curved portion of the wrist
path.
Appeal Br. 22, Claims App.

THE REJECTION
Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–10, 12, 14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Caveney (US 2007/0020082 A1, pub.
Jan. 25, 2007).
Appeal 2021-000964
Application 15/212,441

3
OPINION
Independent Claim 1
The Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is in
error because Caveney does not disclose limitation (d) of the substrate arm
comprising a mechanical transmission configured to control rotation of the
third link as a function of an angle between the first and second links.
Appeal Br. 4. Conversely, the Examiner finds that Caveney’s paragraph 35
and Figures 3A–3J and 6 disclose the limitation.
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
identified by the Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). The Appellant’s principal arguments do not show any
reversible Examiner error.
The parties do not dispute that Caveney discloses an arm with three
links rotatably connected as claimed in limitations (a)–(c). The
disagreement appears to center around what the claim requires in reciting
“[a] substrate transport arm comprising: . . . an arm comprising a mechanical
transmission” connected and configured to “control rotation of the third link
as a function of an angle between the first and second links.” Compare
Appeal Br. 4–11, with Ans. 3–5.
Regarding the claimed substrate arm, the Specification provides for a
substrate transport apparatus that includes a drive 20 and an arm 22. Spec.
¶ 23. The arm has an upper arm or first link 24, a forearm or second link 28,
and an end effector or third link 32. Id. The drive 20 has first and second
motors to drive first link/upper arm and second link/forearm, respectively,
through a band drive having pulleys and bands. Id. ¶ 24. “Third link 32
Appeal 2021-000964
Application 15/212,441

4
with the end-effector may be constrained by a band drive having pulley 88
grounded with respect to link 24, pulley 90 grounded with respect to end
effector or third link 32 and bands 92, 94 constraining pulley 88 and pulley
90.” Id. Figure 4 is illustrative and is reproduced below.

Figure 4 shows drive 20 comprising motors 51, 53 to drive first
link/upper arm through shaft 62 coupled to pulley 66 and to drive second
link/forearm through shaft 64 coupled to a band drive comprising pulleys 66,
82 and bands 84, 86, and third link 32 constrained by a band drive
comprising pulleys 88, 90 and bands 92, 94. Spec. ¶ 24.
The Specification does not provide a specific definition for a
“mechanical transmission,” but simply provides, as stated in claims 1, 9,
and 10, that it comprises a pulley, is connected to the third link, and is
configured to control the rotation of the third link, and that it may also
comprise a belt. See Spec. ¶¶ 5–7, 40–46. Although the Specification
provides for a variable non-linear or ratio mechanical transmission (id.
Appeal 2021-000964
Application 15/212,441

5
¶¶ 25–27, 29, 41), the independent claims are not so limited, requiring the
more broad limitation of “configured” without specifying further particulars
of the configuration. In fact, for the claims that do require a variable ratio
mechanical transmission, i.e., dependent claims 4, 7, 11, 13, and 15, the
Examiner has withdrawn the prior art rejection. Ans. 3.
Similarly, the Specification does not provide a definition for or details
regarding what comprises rotating the third link “as a function of an angle
between the first and second links.” See Spec. ¶¶ 5–7, 25–27, 29, 40, 42, 44,
46. As such, we find the ordinary and customary meaning of the term “as a
function of” to mean related to and changing with. See Merriam-Webster
Online Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
a%20function%20of, retrieved Oct. 1, 2021. Thus, rotating the third link as
a function of the angle between the first and second links is interpreted as
rotating the third link in relation to and changing with the angle between the
first and second links.
Caveney discloses a “substrate transport apparatus comprising a drive
section, a controller, an upper arm, forearm and substrate holder,” with
“[e]ach of the upper arm, forearm and substrate holder being independently
rotatable with respect to each other.” Caveney, Abstr. Transporter 200
mounted in frame 103 transports substrates 106 back and forth from the
holding areas to the staging area. Id. ¶ 25. The transporter 200 comprises an
arm assembly with an upper arm 201, forearm 202, substrate holder 203, and
drive section 204. Id. ¶ 26. “A controller 208 may be connected to the arm
assembly to move the arm sections of the assembly as desired.” Id. The
forearm 202 is rotatably connected to upper arm 201 at elbow 646, substrate
holder 203 is rotatably connected to forearm 202 at wrist 755, and upper arm
Appeal 2021-000964
Application 15/212,441

6
201 is rotatably connected to drive section 204. Id. ¶ 27. Figure 6,
reproduced below, is a cross-sectional view of the transporter showing arms
201 and 202, holder 203, and drive system 204.

Figure 6 shows drive section 204 that comprises an outer housing,
shaft assembly, motors, shafts, stators, rotors, sleeves, bearings, pulleys,
cables, belts, and transmissions. See id. ¶¶ 29–34, Fig. 6. “Each shaft 668
may be provided with a suitable position sensor to signal the controller 208
(see FIG. 5) of the rotational position of the shafts 668 relative to each other
and/or relative to the housing 634H.” Id. ¶ 30. “Shaft 698 is fixedly
mounted to the substrate holder 203” so that “shaft 698 and substrate holder
203 rotate together as a unit about axis Z3 . . . when idler pulley 750 of the
third transmission 752 is rotated by drive pulley 753.” Id. ¶ 34. “Drive
pulley 753 in turn is rotated by inner shaft 672 of the coaxial shift assembly
675” of the second transmission in forearm 202 with shaft 672 rated by idler
Appeal 2021-000964
Application 15/212,441

7
pulley 624 of the first transmission 626 in upper arm 201. Id. “Hence, the
substrate holder 203 may be independently rotated with respect to forearm
202 and upper arm 201 about axis Z3.” Id. Figures 3A–3H and 3J depict
positions of the transporter arm assembly in various positions. See id.
¶¶ 13, 35. They “illustrate the rotation of the upper arm 201, forearm 202
and substrate holder 203 when translating into substrate holding area 105b
(FIG. 2)” and shows rotational directions Ɵ1 of upper arm 201, Ɵ2 of
forearm 202, and Ɵ3 of substrate holder 203 that may change from
clockwise to counterclockwise so as “to effect the translation of a substrate
106 along the substantially radial line R as seen in” Figures 3A–3H. Id.
¶ 54. Caveney’s paragraph 35 provides:
Referring now to FIGS. 2, 3A-H, 3J, 5 and 6, the transporter arm
assembly 200' may be extended and retracted using drive section
204 to the positions shown in FIGS. 2, 3A-3H and 3J or any other
desired position. To extend the arm assembly 200' the controller
208 may send a signal to motors 662, 664, 666 so that their
respective shafts 668a, 668b, 668c are independently rotated
either clockwise or counterclockwise to effect the extension of
the arm 200'.
As such, the Examiner’s finding that Caveney discloses an arm having
a mechanical transmission comprising a pulley connected to the third link to
control rotation of the third link on the second link is supported. To the
extent the Appellant argues that Caveney does not disclose an arm having a
mechanical transmission configured as claimed because their invention does
not rely on electrical signals from the motor (see Appeal Br. 4–7; Reply
Br. 5), this argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Although we appreciate the Appellant’s intent may have been that there
would only be two motors and the third link would not have a motor (see
Appeal Br. 5–6 (arguing that the third link does not have a motor); see also
Appeal 2021-000964
Application 15/212,441

8
Spec., e.g., ¶ 25 (discussing disadvantages of a third motor)), during
examination, “claims . . . are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim language
should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one
of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d
1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). However, limitations
appearing in the Specification, but not recited in the claim, will not be read
into the claim. See CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 418 F.3d 1225,
1231 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Here, claim 1 specifically leaves open the elements of the mechanical
transmission in providing that it “comprises” a pulley. See CIAS, Inc. v.
Alliance Gaming Corp., 504 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“In the
patent claim context, the term ‘comprising’ is well understood to mean
‘including but not limited to’.”). Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s finding that Caveney’s mechanical transmission comprising a
pulley and belt connected to a controller and motor meets the claimed
mechanical transmission. See Ans. 3–4.
We also find supported the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 4) that one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand Caveney, particularly at Figures
3A–3H and 3J, to disclose that the third link is rotated in relation to and
changing with the rotation, and thus angle, between the first and second
links. The Appellant repeatedly argues that Caveney does not disclose “an
angle between the first link 201 and the second link 202 is being used as a
function to control rotation of the third link 203 on the second link 202.”
Appeal Br. 5; see also id. at 6–11 (repeatedly emphasizing “as a function of
an angle between the first and second links”); Reply Br. 5–6. The Appellant
Appeal 2021-000964
Application 15/212,441

9
appears to interpret Caveney’s discussion of the shafts being independently
rotated as somehow indicating that the links are thus rotated independently
of each other such that the links do not rely on the rotational position of any
other link in each of their positions. See Appeal Br. 9–11. However,
Caveney does not indicate that the position of one link does not rely on the
position of another link, but specifically provides that the rotational position
of each link is dependent on that of the other links in stating:
At a point during the translation the rotational direction 81 of the
upper arm 201 may change from clockwise to counterclockwise
to continue the translation of a substrate 106 along the radial line
R as seen in FIGS. 3F and 3G. Likewise, the rotational direction
82, 83 of the substrate holder 203 and the forearm 202 may also
change so that the substrate holder is rotated clockwise and the
forearm is rotated counterclockwise to effect the translation of a
substrate 106 along the substantially radial line R as seen in
FIG. 3H.
Caveney ¶ 54.
Accordingly, we not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Caveney.
Independent Claim 10
Claim 10 recites a method comprising “connecting links in series to at
least partially form a substrate arm, where the links comprise:” the links as
recited in limitations (a) through (c) of claim 1, and “connecting a
mechanical transmission to the third link, where the mechanical transmission
is configured” as recited in limitation (d) of claim 1. Appeal Br. 24–25
(Claims App.).
The Examiner makes the same findings for claim 10 and for claim 1.
See Final Act. 4; Ans. 6.
Appeal 2021-000964
Application 15/212,441

10
The Appellant presents the same arguments for claim 10 as presented
for claim 1. See Appeal Br. 16–18. Thus, for the same reasons discussed
above with respect to claim 1, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated
by Caveney.
Dependent Claims 3 and 12
Dependent claim 3 recites:
A substrate transport arm as claimed in claim 1 where the
mechanical transmission is configured to rotate the third link
relative to the second link, as the first and second links are rotated
relative to each other, such that the third link has a first
movement and a second movement, where the third link
comprises a non-translational movement during the first
movement, and where the third link comprises a translational
movement during the second movement.
Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.). Dependent claim 12 recites the method of
claim 10 having the same limitation. Id. at 25.
The Examiner finds that Caveney discloses this movement and cites to
Figures 2, 3A–3H, and 3J as support. Final Act. 3; Ans. 5. Specifically, the
Examiner finds that “third link 203 clearly has non-translational movement
between FIG. 3A-3G and translational movement in FIG. 2 and also FIG.
3H-3J (note cross-hairs for C and at 83 on third link 203 translate).” Ans. 5.
The Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 3 and 12 is in error because Caveney does not disclose the
mechanical transmission configured to rotate the third link, the third link
comprising a non-translational movement during the first movement and a
translational movement during the second movement. Appeal Br. 11–12
(citing Caveney Figs. 3A–3J, ¶ 64), 19. The Appellant does not present
argument or reasoning that Caveney does not disclose the third link
Appeal 2021-000964
Application 15/212,441

11
comprising non-translational and translational movements. See id. at 12–13.
Rather, the Appellant argues that the movements are caused by the motor
controlled by the controller that is not a mechanical transmission which is
part of the arm. Id. at 13. This argument is not persuasive because, for the
reasons provided above with respect to claim 1, Caveney’s mechanical
transmission comprising a pulley and belt connected to a controller and
motor meets the claimed mechanical transmission as broadly claimed.
Accordingly, we not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 3 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Caveney.
Dependent Claims 8 and 16
Dependent claim 8 recites:
A substrate transport arm as claimed in claim 1 where the wrist
path comprises a straight portion, where the mechanical
transmission is configured to move the third link with a rotational
movement when the wrist joint follows the curved portion of the
wrist path, and where the third link rotates relative to the second
link and the third link moves with a translational movement when
the wrist joint follows the straight portion of the wrist path.
Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). Dependent claim 16 recites the method of
claim 10 having the same limitation. Id. at 26.
The Examiner finds that Caveney discloses the claimed movement
and finds, in relevant part, “[t]here are pulleys and belts which are part of the
mechanical transmission of FIG. 6 of Caveney that are in links 201, 202, and
203. FIG. 2 and 3A-3J show the paths as claimed.” Ans. 6; Final Act. 4.
The Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 8 and 16 is in error because Caveney “does not disclose or suggest
such a mechanical transmission in the arm 201, 202, 203 which is
configured to provide the movement recited in claim 8.” Appeal
Appeal 2021-000964
Application 15/212,441

12
Br. 15–16, 20. The Appellant admits that Caveney “may provide the same
non-translational and translational movement of the end effector” as the
claims (id. at 16), but argues that Caveney does not teach a mechanical
transmission that is part of the arm and configured to rotate the third link as
claimed because Caveney “only uses control of the motor and shaft rotation
to provide non-translational and translational movement of the third link.”
Id. This argument is not persuasive because, for the reasons provided above
with respect to claim 1, Caveney’s mechanical transmission comprising a
pulley and belt connected to a controller and motor meets the claimed
mechanical transmission as broadly claimed.
Accordingly, we not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 8 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Caveney.
Dependent Claims 2, 5, 6, 9, 14, and 15
The Appellant presents no separate argument against the rejection of
dependent claims 2, 5, 6, 9, 14, and 15. Thus, for the reasons discussed
above with respect to claims 1 and 10, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 5, 6, 9, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Caveney
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–10, 12, 14, and
16 is sustained.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 6,
8–10, 12,
14, 16
102(a)(1) Caveney 1–3, 5, 6,
8–10, 12,
14, 16

Appeal 2021-000964
Application 15/212,441

13
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED