Applied Materials, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 9, 2020

14180954 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 9, 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.
14/180,954 02/14/2014 Nir Merry 36119.217 (L0216) 6116
100926 7590 04/09/2020
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP / AMAT
Patent Docket Administrator
One Lowenstein Drive
Roseland, NJ 07068
EXAMINER
FORD, NATHAN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/09/2020 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):
patents@lowenstein.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NIR MERRY, MICHAEL ROBERT RICE,
SUSHANT S. KOSHTI, and JEFFREY C. HUDGENS

Appeal 2019-003573
Application 14/180,954
Technology Center 1700
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, ELIZABETH M. ROESEL, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
The Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1–12.3
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed Feb. 14, 2014 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated May 22, 2018
(“Final”); Appeal Brief filed Oct. 15, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s
Answer dated Feb. 11, 2019 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief filed Apr. 1, 2019
(“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Applied Materials, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2019-003573
Application 14/180,954

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to transfer chambers and semiconductor
processing tools used in electronic device manufacturing systems. Appeal
Br. 3:2–4. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A transfer chamber configured for use during
semiconductor device manufacturing comprising:
a plurality of sides that define a single chamber region
configured to maintain a vacuum level and allow transport of
substrates between a plurality of processing chambers, the
single chamber region defining a first portion of the transfer
chamber and a second portion of the transfer chamber, the
plurality of sides including:
a first side capable of coupling to a first set of
twinned processing chambers, and
a second side capable of coupling to a single
processing chamber;
a first substrate handler located in the first portion of
the transfer chamber;
a second substrate handler located in the second portion of
the transfer chamber, wherein the second substrate handler is
capable of loading a second substrate into one of the chambers
of the first set of twinned processing chambers simultaneously
as the first substrate handler loads a first substrate into the
other of the chambers of the first set of twinned processing
chambers; and
a hand-off location in the single chamber region
configured to allow substrates to be passed between the first
portion of the transfer chamber and the second portion of the
transfer chamber using the first substrate handler and the
second substrate handler.
Appeal Br. 13, Claims Appendix (emphasis added).
Appeal 2019-003573
Application 14/180,954

3

REJECTIONS4
1. Claims 1–4 and 8–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Reimer (US 2002/0192056 A1, pub. Dec. 19, 2002).
2. Claims 5–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Reimer in view of Jevtic (US 5,928,389, iss. July 27,
1999).
OPINION
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites “wherein the second substrate handler is capable of
loading a second substrate into one of the chambers of the first set of
twinned processing chambers simultaneously as the first substrate handler
loads a first substrate into the other of the chambers of the first set of
twinned processing chambers.” As to these limitations, the Examiner found
that the “first substrate handler” and the “second substrate handler” (claim 1)
read on Reimer’s robots 112A, 112B, respectively, and the “first set of
twinned processing chambers” reads on two of Reimer’s process chambers
108. Final 3.
As to other claim 1 limitations, the Examiner found that Reimer’s
transfer chamber 104 is a single chamber separated into first and second
portions by a hand-off location (the area containing platforms 118), and that
Reimer’s robots 112A, 112B are located in the first and second portions,
respectively. Id. at 3–4. The Examiner found that “given that Reimer's robots
move independently, the first robot (112A) is capable of accessing one of the

4 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
in the Advisory Action dated August 7, 2018.
Appeal 2019-003573
Application 14/180,954

4

two [twinned processing] chambers appended to, say, the left face of the
transfer chamber while the second robot (112B) concurrently accesses the
other of the two [twinned processing] chambers.” Id. at 4. Further,
responsive to the Appellant’s argument that “there is no basis in fact and/or
technical reasoning to reasonably support a determination that a
simultaneous loading capability of Reimer’s first and second transfer robots
112A and 112B necessarily flows from the teachings of Reimer” (Appeal
Br. 7–8), the Examiner details how transfer robots 112A, 112B are
mechanically capable of simultaneous substrate loading in the manner
recited in claim 1. Ans. 3–5 (citing Reimer ¶¶ 28, 29).
In the Reply Brief, the Appellant asserts that “[t]he Examiner’s
arguments arguably may, at best, support a finding that Reimer’s robots
112A and 112B may be capable of simultaneously loading respective
substrates into respective process chambers 108 located on a same side of
transfer chamber 104.” Reply Br. 4. The Appellant argues that “‘may be
capable of’ ‘is not sufficient to establish the inherency of that result or
characteristic.’ (MPEP § 2112(IV); emphasis added).” Reply Br. 4.
The case law does not support the Appellant’s argument and,
therefore, the Appellant has not persuaded us of reversible error in the
Examiner’s finding of anticipation as to claim 1. Claim 1 is an apparatus
claim with functional limitations. Functional recitations in an apparatus
claim are given weight in that the corresponding prior art structures must
possess the capability of performing the recited function. See Intel Corp. v.
U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 946 F.2d 821, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “[C]hoosing to
Appeal 2019-003573
Application 14/180,954

5

define an element functionally, i.e., by what it does, carries with it a risk.” In
re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
[W]here the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional
limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the
claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent
characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to
require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to
be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on.
Id. (quoting n re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971)).
In the Appeal Brief, the Appellant does not identify error in the
Examiner’s findings that Reimer discloses the claim 1 structural limitations.
See generally Appeal Br. 5–8.5 As in Schreiber, the existence of the same
structural elements in Reimer gave the Examiner reasonable basis to find
that these elements could perform the claim 1 functional recitations. See In
re Simpson, 102 F. App’x 675, 678 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Therefore, the burden
shifted to the Appellant to disprove inherency. See id. The Appellant has not
met this burden. Moreover, beyond the presumption of inherency, the
Examiner provides sufficient evidence and explanation to support a finding
that Reimer’s apparatus is capable of performing the claim 1 functional
limitations. See Ans. 3–5. The Appellant has not persuasively refuted the
Examiner’s evidence and explanation. See Reply Br. 2–5.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, in the Final Office Action,
and in the Answer, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.

5 We acknowledge the Appellant’s argument that “Reimer does not disclose
that robots 112A and 112B are identical to each other.” Appeal Br. 6.
However, this argument is not persuasive because claim 1 does not require
“identical” substrate handlers.
Appeal 2019-003573
Application 14/180,954

6

Claims 2, 3, 8, and 10–12
The Appellant argues that Reimer does not anticipate dependent
claims 2, 3, 8, and 10–12 for the same reasons argued in support of
patentability of claim 1. Appeal Br. 11–12. Because we are not persuaded of
reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, we also sustain the
rejection of claims 2, 3, 8, and 10–12.
Claims 4 and 9
Claim 4 depends directly from claim 1 and recites “wherein the hand-
off location further comprises a processing region configured to perform a
process on a substrate within the processing region.” Appeal Br. 14, Claims
Appendix. Claim 9 depends indirectly from claim 1 and recites similar
limitations. See id. at 15. The Examiner found that these claim recitations
read on Reimer’s platforms 118 because they act as supports to facilitate the
substrate holding process. Final 4. The Appellant argues that the Examiner
applied an overly broad interpretation of claims 4 and 9 as reading on a
support for holding a substrate. Appeal Br. 9 (“[N]o one skilled in the art
would understand ‘a processing region configured to perform a process on a
substrate within the processing region’ to simply be a transfer platform
holding a substrate.”); see also Reply Br. 6.
During examination, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
construction consistent with the Specification. In re ICON Health &
Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As to the claim 4 and
claim 9 limitation “a processing region configured to perform a process on a
substrate within the processing region,” the Specification discloses that
hand-off locations 128a, 128b may include processing regions
202a and 202b configured to perform one or more processes on
Appeal 2019-003573
Application 14/180,954

7

substrates within the handoff locations 128a, 128b. Example
processes include pre and/or post processing such as degas,
annealing, cool down, plasma treatment, or the like. Other
processes and/or numbers of processing regions 202a and 202b
may be employed.
Spec. ¶ 23 (emphasis added). Absent from the Specification is any
disclosure requiring additional equipment or structure to perform a cool
down process. Therefore, we determine that the Examiner applied the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the argued claim language in finding
that Reimer’s platforms 118 are configured to perform at least a cooling
process on a substrate, because “during a holding operation subsequent the
substrate’s removal from a process chamber, the substrate can be left to
cool.” Ans. 5.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, in the Final Office Action,
and in the Answer, we sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 9.
Claims 5–7
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and recites “wherein the hand-off
location is configured to allow substrates to be passed between the first and
second portions of the transfer chamber at a first elevation and wherein the
processing region of the hand-off location is located at a second elevation
that is different than the first elevation.” Appeal Br. 14, Claims Appendix.
Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and recites “wherein the second elevation is
above the first elevation.” Id. Claim 7 depends from claim 4 and recites
“wherein the processing region of the hand-off location is configured to
perform at least one of pre-processing for one or more processing chambers
coupled to the transfer chamber and post-processing for one or more
processing chambers coupled to the transfer chamber.” Id.
Appeal 2019-003573
Application 14/180,954

8

The Examiner found that Reimer does not describe the claims 5–7
limitations. Final 4. The Examiner found that Jevtic discloses a transfer
chamber for semiconductor device manufacturing that includes pre-cleaning
and post-process cooldown areas (preclean chamber 114, cooldown chamber
102) between first and second portions (transfer chamber 112, buffer
chamber 116). Id. The Examiner found that the ordinary artisan would have
configured Reimer’s hand-off location “to execute pre- and post-processing
to ensure each substrate is sufficiently seasoned for the subsequent stage.”
Id.
The Appellant argues that “[n]either [Jevtic’s] preclean chamber 114
nor cooldown chamber 102 can reasonably be considered Appellant’s ‘hand-
off location in the single chamber region, because preclean chamber 114 and
cooldown chamber 102 are each separate chambers, neither of which is in
transfer chamber 112 or buffer chamber 116.” Appeal Br. 10 (internal
citation omitted). In response, the Examiner explains that Jevtic is relied on
solely “for guidance as to the potential content of the claimed pre- or post-
processing steps.” (Ans. 6).
The Appellant additionally argues that “Jevtic discloses nothing about
preclean chamber 114 and cooldown chamber 102 having first and second
elevations relative to each other.” Appeal Br. 10. In the Final Office Action,
the Examiner does not address the elevation limitations of claims 5 and 6,
nor apply these limitations to the prior art. See Final 4. In the Answer, the
Examiner explains that the “first elevation” is “coextensive with the height
of the hand-off location” which “is precisely the site at which the substrate is
passed between the first and second portions.” Ans. 6. The Examiner
Appeal 2019-003573
Application 14/180,954

9

explains that the “‘processing region of the hand-off location’ . . . [is] the
volume of space situated above the substrate while the substrate undergoes a
process on the hand-off location. In other words, the ‘second elevation,’ i.e.,
the elevation of the processing region, will necessarily be at a height above
the height of the substrate.” Id.
The Appellant argues that the Examiner’s interpretation of claims 5
and 6 is “completely unreasonable.” Reply Br. 8 (emphasis omitted). The
Appellant argues that even if the Examiner’s interpretation were correct, the
prior art does not disclose or suggest different first and second elevations. Id.
The Appellant explains that
the substrate has to first be lifted up from its resting position by
an end effector of a transfer robot—which would presumably
raise the substrate into the “volume of space” defined by the
Examiner as Appellant’s second elevation. Thus, the substrate
would be passed between the first and second portions of the
transfer chamber at the same second elevation as the processing
region (i.e., the “volume of space”) according to the Examiner's
interpretation.
Id.
The Appellant’s arguments are persuasive. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 6.
As to claim 7, the Appellant argues that “while Jevtic may arguably
suggest reconfiguring Reimer’s transfer chamber 104 into separate transfer,
buffer, preclean, and cooldown chambers as shown in Jevtic’s FIG. 1,
neither Reimer nor Jevtic discloses or suggests any reason for modifying
Reimer’s transfer platforms 118 ‘to perform at least one of pre-processing . .
. and post-processing’ within transfer chamber 104.” Appeal Br. 11
Appeal 2019-003573
Application 14/180,954

10

(emphasis omitted) (quoting claim 7). The Appellant’s argument is not
persuasive because it fails to identify error in the Examiner’s finding that the
ordinary artisan would have modified Reimer in the manner claimed “to
ensure each substrate is sufficiently seasoned for the subsequent stage”
(Final 4). See Appeal Br. 11; see generally Reply Br.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 7.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 8–12 102(b) Reimer 1–4, 8–12
5–7 103(a) Reimer, Jevtic 7 5, 6
Overall
Outcome:
1–4, 7–12

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).
AFFIRMED IN PART