Ex Parte BachrachDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesApr 14, 200910444530 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 14, 2009) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte ROBERT Z. BACHRACH ____________________ Appeal 2008-6246 Application 10/444,530 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Decided:1 April 14, 2009 ____________________ Before WILLIAM F. PATE, III, LINDA E. HORNER, and KEN B. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery). Appeal 2008-6246 Application 10/444,530 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Robert Z. Bachrach (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 26 to 37 and 39 to 49. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM. THE INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention pertains to an apparatus for handling semiconductor wafer carriers in a semiconductor substrate manufacturing facility. (Spec. 1, ll. 9-23.) Claim 26, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 26. An apparatus for storing and moving wafer carriers, comprising: a storage apparatus frame adapted to be positioned adjacent an overhead transport mechanism adapted to support a plurality of wafer carriers and transport the plurality of wafer carriers along a wafer carrier transport path; at least one shelf supported by the frame and adapted to support and store a wafer carrier; and a movable portion supported by the frame, the movable portion being adapted to extend and retract relative to the frame, so as to contact a wafer carrier supported by the overhead transport mechanism, and so as to remove the wafer carrier from the overhead transport mechanism, such that the movable portion supports the wafer carrier and the adjacent overhead transport mechanism no longer supports the wafer carrier. Appeal 2008-6246 Application 10/444,530 3 THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Matsumoto US 5,372,241 Dec. 13, 1994 Weiss US 6,454,512 B1 Sept. 24, 2002 Bonora US 6,579,052 B1 June 17, 2003 Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), Specification pages 1 and 2. The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 26-36 and 41-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Matsumoto, and Bonora; 2. Claims 37, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Matsumoto, Bonora, and Weiss. Appellant identifies claims 26 to 49 as the claims on appeal. (“Brief on Appeal (Second Resubmitted Appeal Brief),” dated Sept. 15, 2006 (App. Br.) 3.) However, claim 38 is subject only to an objection as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. (Id.; Final Rej. 4.) Appellant does not appear to seek our review of the objection to claim 38. (See App. Br. at 7; see also id. at 18 (requesting that the Board “indicate the allowability of application claims 26 through 37 and 39 through 49”).) As Appellant notes (id. at 3), the Examiner indicated that claim 38 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form (Final Rej. 4). Because claim 38 is not the subject of a rejection, the objection thereto does not present a matter within the jurisdiction of the Board. Cf. In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894 (CCPA 1967). Appeal 2008-6246 Application 10/444,530 4 ISSUES The issues before us include whether the Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 26-36 and 41-49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Matsumoto, and Bonora. This issue turns on whether the cited references disclose all of the limitations of the rejected claims and whether a rational reason exists as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references to arrive at the claimed subject matter. The issues before us also include whether the Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 37, 39, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Matsumoto, Bonora, and Weiss. This issue turns on whether the cited references disclose all of the limitations of the rejected claims. FINDINGS OF FACT We find that the following enumerated findings are supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. 1. Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) teaches that the following were known in the art: an overhead wafer carrier transport mechanism, a storage buffer with at least one shelf, a robot to transfer the wafer carrier between locations, and kinematic mounts on wafer carriers. (Spec. 1, l. 15 – 2, l. 20.) Appellant explains that kinematic mounts are mechanical couplings used to align a wafer carrier on a platform. (Spec. 2, ll. 11-13.) 2. Matsumoto discloses an automated system for carrying objects between production regions and for transferring the objects from one carrier Appeal 2008-6246 Application 10/444,530 5 means to another. (Matsumoto, col. 1, 16-21; col. 2, ll. 8-13.) Matsumoto teaches a first carrier 12 that moves along a gantry-like bridge member 11. (Id., col. 2, l. 68 – col. 3, l. 4.) A second carrier 22 travels on an overhead track 21 and carries object 4 between production regions. (Id., col. 3, ll. 4-11; Figs. 3, 4.) The first carrier 12 comprises a loading table 122, upon which object 4 is loaded, and rod-like support member 121 mounted below the loading table 122. (Id., col. 3, ll. 22-26.) The support member 121 vertically telescopically supports the table (id.), and is mounted to a first driving unit in the bridge member 11 (id., col. 3, ll. 27-30). 3. During operation, Matsumoto’s second carrier 22 transports object 4 and moves into a position over the first carrier 12. (Matsumoto, col. 5, ll. 55-60; Fig. 4.) The support member 121 of the first carrier 12 extends upwardly to lift the loading table 122, such that object 4 is transferred from the second carrier 22 to the first carrier 12. (Id., col. 5, ll. 60-64.) The support member 121 of the first carrier 12 is also capable of contracting to lower the loading table 122. (Id., col. 5, ll. 51-55.) During this transfer operation, the loading table 122 is vertically aligned with the carrier transport path. (Id., Fig. 4.) 4. The vertical, double-headed arrow in Matsumoto’s Figure 4 further indicates that the loading table 122 extends and retracts, via telescoping support member 121, relative to the bridge member 11. 5. Therefore, Matsumoto discloses, at least inherently, an actuator adapted to extend and retract the loading table 122 relative to the bridge member 11. 6. Bonora discloses a conventional local tool buffer 10 to store wafer-carrying pods adjacent to a process tool 12. (Bonora, col. 2, ll. 18-26, Appeal 2008-6246 Application 10/444,530 6 50-54; Fig. 1A.) Bonora further discloses a plurality of shelves 18 supported by the buffer frame. (See id., col. 2, ll. 26-29; Fig. 1A.) The shelves are capable of supporting and storing wafer-carrying pods. (Id., col. 2, ll. 26-29, 50-54.) 7. Bonora also discloses that “it is known to transfer [wafer- carrying] pods around within a tool bay on an overhead delivery system which may comprise a series of pod hand-off interfaces for transferring pods to vertical elevators which in turn lower the pods into the local buffer or directly down onto the tool load port.” (Bonora, col. 9, ll. 14-19.) 8. Bonora teaches a moving gripper 120 which grips wafer- carrying pods and transfers the pods from one location to another. (Bonora, col. 10, l. 62 – col. 11, l. 12.) One of Bonora’s embodiments has autokinematic pins 150 on a plate 148 mounted on the top side of the bracket 140 which supports the gripper 120. (Id., col. 12, l. 61 – col. 13, l. 1; Fig. 7.) The autokinematic pins 150 mate with detents on the lower surface of a pod 132 so as to securely hold the pod on the plate. (Id., col. 13, ll. 5-13.) 9. Bonora states that the disclosed “storage, delivery and retrieval system may be provided in various orientations with respect to the process tool it is serving.” (Bonora, col. 4, ll. 38-40.) Bonora further teaches that various configurations of shelves may be used, and that the shelves may be positioned as needed for a particular application. (Id., col. 4, ll. 47-51; col. 8, ll. 42-56.) 10. Weiss discloses a cart 12 for transporting and delivering wafer carriers 18 to loadports. (Weiss, col. 1, ll. 30-35; col. 2, ll. 50-52.) Weiss’s cart 12 has a carrier support assembly 16 mounted to the frame 14. (Id., col. 1, ll. 33-38; col. 2, ll. 50-52.) “The carrier support assembly comprises a Appeal 2008-6246 Application 10/444,530 7 cradle configured to support the carrier, a lifting mechanism operative to raise and lower the cradle vertically, and a horizontal slide mechanism operative to move the cradle horizontally to and from a position outboard of the cart.” (Id., col. 1, ll. 38-42.) Thus, Weiss discloses a movable cradle adapted to extend laterally relative to the frame supporting the cradle and beyond the footprint of the frame. 11. The prior art of record indicates that the person of ordinary skill in the art of wafer carrier handling has a high level of skill. (See, e.g., Bonora, col. 1, l. 25 – col. 2, l. 34; Matsumoto, col. 1, ll. 15-47.) PRINCIPLES OF LAW “Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, ___, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1734 (2007) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966); see also KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at ___, 127 S. Ct. at 1734 (“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that controls.”). The scope and content of the prior art includes the explicit and inherent teachings of the prior art. In re Appeal 2008-6246 Application 10/444,530 8 Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1383-84 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). In KSR, the Supreme Court emphasized “the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art,” KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at ___, 127 S. Ct. at 1739, and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be obvious. The Court noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” Id. at ___, 127 S. Ct. at 1740 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 50-51 (1966)). The operative question in this “functional approach” is thus “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” Id. at ___, 127 S. Ct. at 1740. “Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). ANALYSIS The Rejection of Claims 26-36 and 41-49 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as Being Unpatentable Over AAPA, Matsumoto, and Bonora Independent Claims 26 and 41 Appellant argues independent claims 26 and 41 as a group. (See App. Br. 7, 10, 11, 14.) We select claim 26 as the representative claim, and claim 41 stands or falls with claim 26. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2008). Appeal 2008-6246 Application 10/444,530 9 AAPA teaches that an overhead wafer carrier transport mechanism and a storage buffer with at least one shelf were known in the art. (Fact 1.) Bonora elaborates on the configuration of a conventional storage buffer by disclosing a storage frame supporting several wafer carrier shelves. (Fact 6.) Bonora further discloses that it was known to transport wafer-carrying pods via an overhead delivery system comprising a series of pod interfaces transferring the pods to vertical elevators which lower the pods into the local storage buffer. (Fact 7.) Matsumoto teaches a movable portion supported by a frame (the bridge member) and positioned under an overhead transport mechanism. (Facts 2-4.) Matsumoto’s movable portion extends and retracts relative to the frame so as to remove wafer carriers from the overhead transport mechanism. (Facts 3-4.) It would have been obvious to replace one of Bonora’s shelves with Matsumoto’s support member and loading table so as to transfer the wafer carrier directly from the overhead transport to the storage buffer without the need for additional interfaces. This is merely a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See KSR Int’l, 550 U.S. at ___, 127 S. Ct. at 1740. Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Matsumoto discloses the recited storage apparatus frame. (App. Br. 9.) Appellant contends that Matsumoto’s “bridge member 11 (along with the carrier 12) appears to be part of a carrier system and not a frame of a storage apparatus 58 as recited by Applicant’s claims.” (Id.) Appellant’s argument is not persuasive as the rejection is based on the combined teachings of the cited references, and Bonora teaches a frame for storing wafer containers (Fact 6). Appellant also argues that Matsumoto’s movable portion moves solely linearly along the frame, but does not extend and retract vertically relative to Appeal 2008-6246 Application 10/444,530 10 the frame. (App. Br. 10.) Appellant’s argument ignores Matsumoto’s disclosure of a loading table with a support member that extends and retracts vertically relative to the bridge member (Facts 2-4). Appellant further asserts that the cited references fail to teach a single frame that supports both a shelf and a movable portion. (App. Br. 11.) This argument is not persuasive because the combination of references teaches a single frame supporting a shelf, as disclosed in Bonora, and a movable portion, as disclosed in Matsumoto. Appellant also argues that “the Examiner has not provided the required explicit or implicit motivation to combine the references that is absolutely required to support a § 103 rejection” (App. Br. 12), and that impermissible hindsight has been employed (id. at 13). The Supreme Court has rejected the rigid requirement of a teaching, suggestion or motivation to combine known elements in order to show obviousness. KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at ___, 127 S. Ct. at 1741. And, for the reasons discussed above, we disagree with the argument that the conclusion of obviousness is based on impermissible hindsight. Appellant has failed to persuade us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 26 as obvious over the cited references. Thus, we affirm the rejection of claim 26 as well as the rejection of claim 41, which falls with claim 26. Dependent Claims 27-36 and 42-49 Appellant asserts that dependent claims 27 through 36 and 42 through 49 are separately patentable. (See App. Br. 14.) However, for each claim, Appellant offers little more than a statement that a recited feature renders the Appeal 2008-6246 Application 10/444,530 11 claim patentable and that the references do not disclose the feature. (App. Br. 14-17.) Appellant does not explain or show with specificity why the Examiner’s findings as to particular features and the Examiner’s obviousness determinations are incorrect (Final Rej. 2-4; Ans. 3-5, 9-11). Appellant’s conclusory assertions of patentability do not persuade us of Examiner error. As to claim 27, Appellant asserts that recitation of a movable portion vertically aligned with the carrier transport, “as opposed, for example, to being horizontally aligned,” imparts patentability. (App. Br. 15.) Appellant’s assertion is not persuasive because Matsumoto teaches this feature. (Fact 3.) For each of claims 28-30 (concerning the quantity and location of the shelves), Appellant further asserts that “the Examiner does not appear to have addressed [the recited feature.]” (Id.) The Examiner did address the recited features, and properly found that Bonora teaches a plurality of shelves and that the shelves may be placed at any location on the frame as needed (Final Rej. 3; Ans. 4-5). (See Fact 9.) Further, the Examiner reasonably concluded that a person of ordinary skill could readily configure the location of the overhead transport and the shelves to meet the design needs of a particular system (Ans. 10). (See Facts 9, 11.) Claim 31 recites that the movable portion is adapted so as to kinematically couple with the wafer carrier. Appellant asserts that “[t]he [autokinematic] pins disclosed in Bonora are on a separate robot and not on an apparatus equivalent to Appellant’s ‘movable portion.’” (App. Br. 16.) The kinematic coupling feature does not render the claimed invention patentable. AAPA discloses that conventional wafer carriers had kinematic Appeal 2008-6246 Application 10/444,530 12 mounts. (Fact 1.) The wafer carriers in Bonora have detents for kinematic coupling, and Bonora’s moving gripper bracket has mating pins on its top side. (Fact 8.) Thus, the inclusion of autokinematic pins on the moving loading table of Matsumoto is the obvious combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at ___, 127 S. Ct. at 1739. Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 27-36 and 42-49. The Rejection of Claims 37, 39, and 40 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as Being Unpatentable Over AAPA, Matsumoto, Bonora, and Weiss Claims 37, 39, and 40 depend indirectly from independent claim 26. Appellant contends that claims 37, 39, and 40 are patentable for the same reasons previously given for claim 26 because Weiss does not overcome the purported deficiencies of the other cited references. (App. Br. 14.) Appellant asserts: “Specifically, Weiss does not teach a platform that extends and retracts relative to the frame to contact a wafer carrier that is supported by an overhead transport system.” (Id.) As discussed above, we have found Appellant’s arguments concerning claim 26 to be unpersuasive. Claims 37, 39, and 40 recite that the movable portion is adapted to extend laterally relative to the frame. Weiss teaches a movable carrier support assembly adapted to extend vertically and laterally relative to the supporting frame. (Fact 10.) To replace one of the shelves on Bonora’s storage buffer with the carrier support assembly disclosed by Weiss would have been prima facie obvious as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Appellant identifies each of these three dependent claims under separate headings, but, for each, Appeal 2008-6246 Application 10/444,530 13 merely states that the claim recites a feature that renders the claim patentable and that the feature has not been identified in the cited references. (App. Br. 17-18.) Appellant does not explain or show with any specificity why the Examiner’s findings regarding the recited features are incorrect (Final Rej. 4; Ans. 5-6). As such, Appellant has failed to show that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 37, 39, and 40 as obvious over the cited references. CONCLUSIONS We conclude that the Appellant has failed to show that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 26-36 and 41-49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Matsumoto, and Bonora. We also conclude that Appellant has failed to show that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 37, 39, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Matsumoto, Bonora, and Weiss. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 26 to 37 and 39 to 49 affirmed. 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) (2007). AFFIRMED vsh Appeal 2008-6246 Application 10/444,530 14 DUGAN & DUGAN, PC 245 SAW MILL RIVER ROAD SUITE 309 HAWTHORNE NY 10532 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation