Seagate Technology LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 17, 2020

2019005273 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2020)

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.
15/610,463 05/31/2017 Samuel Lewis TANAKA STL 072935.00 6288
64776 7590 06/17/2020
Holzer Patel Drennan - Seagate Technology LLC
216 16th Street
Suite 1350
Denver, CO 80202
EXAMINER
MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1794
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/17/2020 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):
docket@hpdlaw.com
hiplaw@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SAMUEL LEWIS TANAKA
Appeal 2019-005273
Application 15/610,463
Technology Center 1700
BEFORE CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. Appeal Br. 15. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm in part.

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed May 31, 2017 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action mailed July 27, 2018
(“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed February 5, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”);
Examiner’s Answer mailed May 16, 2019 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief filed
June 27, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Seagate
Technology LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-005273
Application 15/610,463

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant states the invention relates to an apparatus including a
cooling chamber with an inflatable seal. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (Appeal Br., Claims
Appendix 16):
1. A system comprising:
a cooling chamber;
a first cooling plate within the cooling chamber;
a second cooling plate positioned opposite the first cooling
plate within the cooling chamber;
a carrier configured to move a workpiece into the cooling
chamber and position the workpiece between the first cooling
plate and the second cooling plate; and
an inflatable seal surrounding a portion of the first cooling
plate and the second cooling plate, wherein
the inflatable seal forms a gas channel between the first
cooling plate and the second cooling plate when the inflatable
seal is inflated, and
the inflatable seal removes the gas channel between the first
cooling plate and the second cooling plate when the inflatable
seal is deflated.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Martin et al.
hereinafter “Martin” US 5,094,013 March 10, 1992
Strasser et al.
hereinafter “Strasser” US 5,415,729 May 16, 1995
Yi et al.
hereinafter “Yi” US 2004/0250996 A1 December 16, 2004
Appeal 2019-005273
Application 15/610,463

3
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1–7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Yi, Martin, and Strasser. Final Act. 2–7.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 8–11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Martin and Strasser. Final Act. 7–10.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Martin, Strasser, and Yi. Final Act. 10.
4. The Examiner rejected claims 15–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Martin and Strasser. Final Act. 10–11.

OPINION
Rejection 1
In reviewing the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Yi, Martin, and Strasser, we limit our discussion
to claim 1, which is sufficient to dispose of the issues related to this
rejection.

The Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner found Yi discloses a system including a first cooling
plate and a second cooling plate in a cooling chamber, and a carrier
configured to move a workpiece into the cooling chamber. Final Act. 3,
citing Yi ¶¶ 34–45. The Examiner found Yi does not disclose an inflatable
seal surrounding a portion of the first cooling plate and the second cooling
plate, which, when the seal is inflated, forms a gas channel between the first
and second cooling plates, and, when the seal is deflated, removes the gas
channel between the first and second cooling plates. Id. at 3. The Examiner
Appeal 2019-005273
Application 15/610,463

4
found Martin suggests placing seals between cooling plates to control
pressure in the space in order to increase heat transfer. Id. citing Martin, col.
6, ll. 3–12, Figs. 5A and 6, seal 60. The Examiner found that the seals in
Martin form a gas channel between the first and second cooling plates. Id.
The Examiner found one of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate the
seals of Martin in Yi to allow for increasing heat transfer due to pressure
control. Id. The Examiner found Strasser discloses inflatable seals that
allow insertion of a disc shaped substrate into a space that is sealable from
other spaces via the inflatable seals. Id. at 3–4 citing Strasser, col. 7, ll. 58–
68, col. 8, ll. 1–49, col. 11., ll. 61–68, col. 12, ll. 24–66; Figs. 1a–1e, 7, 8.
The Examiner determined one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize the
inflatable seals of Strasser in place of the seals of Martin in combination
with Yi, because it would allow the insertion of the disc shaped substrate
into the space. Id. at 4. The Examiner determined that when the inflatable
seals of Strasser are utilized in the combination of Yi and Martin, the gas
channel would be removed when the seal is deflated. Id.

Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant argues incorporating Martin’s seals between Yi’s cooling
plates would not form a gas channel as recited in the claims, but, rather,
incorporating Martin’s seals would enclose Yi’s cooling plates and block
any flow of gas. Appeal Br. 10–11. Appellant contends there is no
motivation to combine Yi and Martin, and further including Strasser’s
inflatable seal, because the added seal and additional processing steps
associated therewith would decrease throughput, which would frustrate the
higher throughput needs identified by Yi. Id. at 11–12, citing Yi ¶ 9. In this
Appeal 2019-005273
Application 15/610,463

5
regard, Appellant argues Yi already teaches sealing the seal opening 22 in
chamber 10 with seal 20. Id.; Reply Br. 2.

Issue
The dispositive issue with respect to this rejection is:
Did the Examiner err in determining that it would have been obvious
to have combined Yi, Martin, and Strasser to arrive at the inflatable seal
arrangement recited in claim 1?

Discussion
We are persuaded that the Examiner has not provided sufficient
reasons to support the position that Yi, Martin, and Strasser may be
combined in a manner that would render claim 1 obvious. Although the
Examiner points to Martin in order to provide a seal for increasing heat
transfer due to pressure control contributed by the seals, Yi already contains
a sealing mechanism, whereby a seal 20 seals seal opening 22 when disk 16
is fully inserted. Yi ¶ 36, Figs. 1, 2. Yi expressly discloses this arrangement
“seals chamber 10 and a high vacuum can be achieved by the high vacuum
source 11.” Id. Thus, the disclosure of Yi is consistent with Martin, which
discloses the seals are attached to the housing in order to permit pressure
control for increased heat transfer rates. Martin, col. 6, ll. 7–12; Figs. 5A,
5C, 6. It is therefore unclear why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
undertaken additional modification in Yi based on Martin’s disclosure,
particularly considering the structural differences between the systems of Yi
and Martin, and in view of Yi’s disclosure relating to an arrangement to
provide a high throughput. Yi ¶¶ 9, 10.
Appeal 2019-005273
Application 15/610,463

6
The Examiner’s response in the Answer relying on exhaust ports 64
and exhaust pipe 58 of Martin in order to support the position that the seals
would form a gas channel (Ans. 14) further highlights the issues with the
combination Yi and Martin as it is unclear how the combination would result
in the system with inflatable seals as arranged in claim 1. See Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner’s reliance on the inflatable seals disclosed in Strasser does not
remedy the deficiencies discussed above.
As a result, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims
2–7 dependent therefrom, as obvious over Yi, Martin, and Strasser.

Rejection 2
In reviewing the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8–11 and 13 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Martin and Strasser, Appellant does not
present separate arguments with respect to the claims subject to Rejection 2.
See Appeal Br. 12–13. We select claim 8 as representative for disposition of
this rejection, with the patentability of the other claims standing or falling
with claim 8. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

The Examiner’s Rejection
Regarding claim 8, the Examiner found Martin discloses an apparatus
comprising a first seal surrounding a plurality of cooling plates and a second
seal surrounding the plurality of cooling plates, wherein the first and second
seals form a gas channel. Final Act. 7. The Examiner found Martin does
not disclose the seals are inflatable and form a carrier channel and remove a
gas channel when deflated. Id. The Examiner relies on similar teachings in
Strasser as discussed above for the aspects of the inflatable seal not present
Appeal 2019-005273
Application 15/610,463

7
in Martin. Id. at 7–8. The Examiner determined it would have been obvious
to have utilized the inflatable seals of Strasser in place of the seals in Martin
because it would allow for the insertion of a disc shaped substrate into the
space. Id. As a result of the combination, the Examiner determined that
when the seal is deflated, the gas channel would be removed. Id. at 8.

Appellant’s contentions
Appellant contends Martin does not disclose a first and a second seal
form a gas channel, but, rather, Martin discloses the exhausting ports are
closed to the corresponding inlet ports in order to ensure that the fluid travels
only a small distance across the surface of the material in order to minimize
mixing of heating fluid with inlet fluid and to control the velocity of fluid
across the area to be quenched. Appeal Br. 12–13, citing Martin, col. 4, ll.
58–64, Figs. 1, 3A, 3B, 5A–5C. Appellant argues because Martin discloses
the seal is used for pressurization of the device around the quenching area,
Martin’s inlet and exhaust ports are present with or without the seal, such
that Martin does not teach that the seals form and remove a gas channel as
recited in the claims. Id. at 13, citing Martin, col. 4, ll. 12–14.

Issue
Has Appellant demonstrated reversible error in the Examiner’s
position that the combination of Martin and Strasser would render the
apparatus including the first and second inflatable seals recited in claim 8
obvious?

Appeal 2019-005273
Application 15/610,463

8
Discussion
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the seals of
Martin as modified by Strasser would not result in inflatable seals that form
a gas channel when inflated and remove the gas channel when deflated. In
particular, we do not agree that Martin’s disclosure of insuring the
quenching fluid to be exhausted travels only a small distance across the
surface of the material (col. 4, ll. 58–64) means that the seals in Martin as
modified by Strasser would not be capable of forming and removing a gas
channel as claimed in claim 8. Martin discloses ports 14 are to “minimiz[e]
the mixing of heated quenching fluid with adjacent inlet quenching fluid and
controlling the velocity of the fluid across the area to be quenched.” Martin,
col. 4, ll. 58–64. Thus, this disclosure addresses the interaction between the
quenching fluid and area to be quenched. The quenching fluid to be
exhausted still flows through the exhaust plenum 56 and exhaust pipe 58.
Martin, col. 6, ll. 3–5, Fig. 5A, 6.
As to the purpose of Martin’s seals, Martin discloses seal 60 “seals the
area to be quenched” and “enables recycling of the quenching fluid in a
closed loop system.” Id. at col. 6, ll. 8–12. Therefore, the presence of
inflated seals in the combination proposed by the Examiner would be
capable of creating a gas channel as recited in claim 8 by altering the flow of
quenching fluid allowing recycling thereof. Likewise, the deflation of the
seals would again alter the flow of the quenching fluid and be capable of
removing the gas channel.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection.

Appeal 2019-005273
Application 15/610,463

9
Rejections 3 and 4
Appellant does not present separate arguments for Rejections 3 and 4,
but, rather, relies on the arguments made with respect to claim 8, subject to
Rejection 2. Appeal Br. 13–14.
Accordingly, we affirm Rejections 3 and 4 for similar reasons as
discussed above for Rejection 2.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–7 103 Yi, Martin, Strasser 1–7
8–11, 13 103 Martin, Strasser 8–11, 13
12, 14 103 Martin, Strasser, Yi 12, 14
15–20 103 Martin, Strasser 15–20
Overall
Outcome 8–20 1–7
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART