Ex Parte Blonigan et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 12, 2012

11140777 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 12, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte WENDELL T. BLONIGAN, CARL SORENSEN,
JOHN M. WHITE, and ROBIN L. TINER
____________

Appeal 2010-006915
Application 11/140,777
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before KEN B. BARRETT, JAMES P. CALVE, and
REMY J. VANOPHEM, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1, 2, 4, 6, 11-13, 16, 18, and 20-22. App. Br. 2.1 Claims 3, 5, 7-10, 14, 15,
17, 19, and 23-29 have been canceled. Claim 18 is allowed. Final Rej. 8.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 Refers to Appeal Brief filed Nov. 9, 2009.
Appeal 2010-006915
Application 11/140,777

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed subject matter on appeal:
1. An apparatus for handling substrates with electronic
components comprising:
a stationary plate;
at least one lift pin having a first end adapted to lift a first
substrate to allow clearance for a robotic arm between a bottom
of the first substrate and a susceptor to exchange the first
substrate for a second substrate, and a second end opposite the
first end adapted to engage the plate while the substrate is lifted
by the pin, wherein the lift pin is disposed to slide vertically
through the susceptor; and
a magnet coupled to the lift pin, wherein the magnet is
disposed to apply an attracting force to maintain a vertical
orientation of the lift pin.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Drage (US 4,790,258; iss. Dec. 13, 1988) in view of
Litschel (US 6,109,922; iss. Aug. 29, 2000) and White (US 6,149,365; iss.
Nov. 21, 2000).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Or (US 2004/0045509 A1; pub. Mar. 11, 2004) and White.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Kono (US 7,214,271 B2; iss. May 8, 2007) and White.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Drage and White.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Or or Kono in view of White and further in view of
Salzman (US 5,848,670; iss. Dec. 15, 1998).
Appeal 2010-006915
Application 11/140,777

3
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 11-13 as unpatentable over Drage, Litschel and White
The Examiner found that Drage discloses a substrate lifted from a
susceptor to allow clearance for a robotic arm. Ans. 4. The Examiner also
found that Drage discloses a magnet coupled to a lift pin, but the magnet
does not apply an attracting force to the lift pin, and the plate of Drage is not
stationary as called for in claim 1. Ans. 4. The Examiner further found that
Litschel shows a magnet that applies an attracting force to a lift pin (Fig. 3)
and White teaches a stationary plate. Ans. 4. The Examiner determined that
it would have been obvious to modify Drage to manipulate the lift pin by an
attractive magnetic force as taught by Litschel as an art-recognized alternate
equivalent means of using magnetism to engage a lift pin while maintaining
its vertical orientation. Ans. 4-5.
Appellants argue that modifying Drage with Litschel is not simply an
art-recognized alternate equivalent means of using magnetism to engage a
lift pin while maintaining its vertical orientation because neither reference
discloses a magnet that applies an attracting force to a lift pin to maintain a
vertical orientation of the lift pin. App. Br. 14. Appellants also argue that
Drage’s pin lift mechanism and Litschel’s transient display for displaying
braille characters are not directed to the same problem as claim 1, which
calls for maintaining lift pins in a vertical position. Reply Br. 10-11.
The Examiner has not adequately explained why a skilled artisan
would have had a reason to modify Drage to apply an attracting magnetic
force to maintain a vertical orientation of the lift pin 23 when Drage uses a
nonmetallic sleeve 25 to maintain the vertical orientation of the lift pin 23.
Col. 2, ll. 14-24; fig. 2. A magnetic slug 24 also is placed inside the sleeve
Appeal 2010-006915
Application 11/140,777

4
25 beneath the lift pin 23. Magnetic attraction between a ring magnet 35 in
a lift plate 34 and the magnetic slug 24 causes the slug 24 to rise in the
sleeve 25, contact the bottom of the lift pin 23, and move the lift pin 23
upwardly in the sleeve 25. As the slug is lowered, the lift pin 23 moves
downwardly due to gravity. Col. 1, ll. 48-51; col. 2, ll. 24-35. The sleeve 25
maintains the vertical orientation of the lift pin 23 during this movement.
Litschel moves pins 35, 45 upwardly and downwardly in perforated plates 4,
17 by using an electromagnet 16 to attract and repel a permanent magnet 8
that is attached to a bottom of each pin 35, 45. Col. 3, ll. 59-67; fig. 3. The
Examiner has not adequately explained how the attractive magnetic force of
Litschel maintains a vertical orientation of the lift pins 35, 45, or why it
would have been obvious to modify Drage when Drage uses a sleeve 25 to
maintain the vertical orientation of the lift pins 23. As such, we cannot
sustain the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 4, 6, and 11-13.
Claim 16 as unpatentable over Or and White
Independent claim 16 recites an apparatus with a lift pin and a plate
adapted to engage a lower bearing surface of the lift pin where the plate is a
stationary friction plate comprised of at least a texture. The Examiner found
that Or discloses a lift pin 230 with a first end 206 for supporting a substrate
and an opposite lower bearing surface 208 and a plate 124 for engaging the
lower bearing surface. Ans. 6. The Examiner found that the lift plate 124 is
inherently a “friction plate” as recited in claim 16 because Or discloses that
no relative movement between the plate and lift pin is desired. Ans. 6. The
Examiner also found that the friction plate inherently has “at least a texture”
in that any surface possesses a texture. Ans. 6. The Examiner further found
that claim 16 does not recite any features for the terms “friction” or “texture”
Appeal 2010-006915
Application 11/140,777

5
to define over Or. The Examiner relied on White to teach a stationary plate
60 and determined that providing a stationary plate on Or would have been
obvious as a mere reversal of parts. Ans. 6.
Appellants argue that neither Or nor White teaches a friction plate that
maintains a vertical orientation of the lift pins. App. Br. 16. Appellants also
argue that the lower end of the lift pin in Or’s configuration is free to slip on
a non-friction plate. App. Br. 17. Appellants further contend that the term
“engage” means “to get caught” and White’s lift pins appear to be integrally
formed with the lift plate and are not actively getting caught on the lift plate.
App. Br. 17. Appellants also assert that not all textured surfaces provide
enough friction to maintain a vertical orientation of the lift pin during lifting
of the substrate as does the claimed friction plate, and neither Or nor White
discloses a friction plate that engages the lower bearing surface of the lift
pin. App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 14.
Appellants’ arguments regarding White are not persuasive because the
Examiner relied on Or to disclose a friction plate with a texture and White to
disclose a stationary plate. Ans. 9. Appellants’ arguments regarding Or do
not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings that Or’s lift plate
inherently provides a friction surface that engages a lower bearing surface
208 of a lift pin 230 to maintain the vertical orientation of the lift pin 230.
See para. [0018]; fig. 2. Claim 16 does not recite any features of the friction
plate such as a friction co-efficient or particular texture and we decline to
read such features from the Specification into claim 16. The Examiner had a
sound basis for finding that Or’s lift plate 124 has a friction and texture and
engages a lower bearing surface 208 of a lift pin 230 to maintain the lift pin
230 in a vertical orientation. Appellants have not persuaded us that this is
Appeal 2010-006915
Application 11/140,777

6
erroneous. As such, we sustain the rejection of claim 16 based on Or and
White.
Claim 16 as unpatentable over Kono and White
The Examiner found that Kono discloses a configuration substantially
similar to Or including a friction plate that inherently has a “texture.” Ans. 6
(citing Fig. 5). The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to
use a stationary plate and movable susceptor, as shown by White, on Kono
as this would be a mere reversal of parts that results in the same relative
movement between the substrate, susceptor, and lift pin. Ans. 7.
Appellants argue that Kono provides a single cavity 15b to engage the
lift pin whereas the textured friction plate of Appellants’ embodiments has
many engagement points so that alignment of the friction plate and lower
bearing surface of the lift pin is not as critical. App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 15.
Appellants also argue that Kono’s arms must be aligned and leveled with
respect to the susceptor whereas Appellants’ friction plate is part of the
bottom chamber wall. App. Br. 19. These arguments are not persuasive
because claim 16 does not recite engagement points or a friction plate that is
part of a chamber wall, and we decline to read such limitations into claim 16
or limit claim 16 to particular embodiments when the language of claim 16
is broader than those embodiments. As such, we sustain the rejection of
claim 16 based on Kono and White.
Claim 20 as unpatentable over Drage and White
Independent claim 20 recites an apparatus with a lift pin, a stationary
plate adapted to engage a lower bearing surface of the lift pin, and a magnet
coupled to the lift pin. The Examiner found that Drage discloses a lift pin 23
that slides through a susceptor 21, a magnetic slug 24 that is considered to be
Appeal 2010-006915
Application 11/140,777

7
a “plate” for engaging the lower bearing surface of the pin, and a magnet 35
coupled to the lift pin 23. Ans. 3. The Examiner found that White discloses
a similar apparatus with a stationary plate and determined that it would have
been obvious to provide such a stationary plate on Drage as a reversal of
parts and art recognized alternate equivalent of a movable plate. Ans. 3-4, 8.
Appellants argue that Drage’s magnetic slug is not a stationary plate
that engages the lower bearing surface of the lift pin to maintain a vertical
orientation of the pin but instead moves upwardly and downwardly in a
sleeve to raise and lower the pin. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 5, 7. Appellants
also argue that White’s lift pins 62 are formed integrally with the lift plate
60 so the lift plate does not “engage” the lower bearing surface of the lift pin
to maintain a vertical orientation of the pin. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 5-6.
Appellants also argue that the non-stationary plate in Drage does not contact
or engage the pins. Reply Br. 7.
The Examiner has not established by a preponderance of evidence that
Drage’s magnetic slug 24 engages a lower bearing surface of the lift pin 23
wherein a vertical orientation of the lift pin may be maintained during lifting
of the substrate as called for in claim 20. Instead, the magnetic slug 24 and
pin 23 move upwardly and downwardly within a sleeve 25 that maintains the
vertical orientation of the lift pin 23. Thus, irrespective of how the slug 23
engages the lift pin 23, the vertical orientation of the lift pin 23 is maintained
by the sleeve 25. Col. 2, ll. 14-35; fig. 2. Although the term “adapted to”
can mean “capable of” or “suitable for” (Ans. 8), in the context of claim 20,
it means that the stationary plate is “configured to” or “designed to” engage
the lower bearing surface of the lift pin “wherein a vertical orientation of the
lift pin may be maintained.” See Reply Br. 5-7. This meaning is supported
Appeal 2010-006915
Application 11/140,777

8
by Appellants’ Specification, which discloses that the present invention
applies friction and/or magnetic force to the lower bearing surface of the lift
pins such that the lift pins are restricted from horizontal movement. Spec. 3,
ll. 9-20; see also App. Br. 9-10; Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear,
Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012). As such, we cannot sustain the
rejection of claim 20.
Claims 21-22 as unpatentable over Or/Kono, White, and Salzman
Independent claim 21 recites an apparatus comprising a lift pin, a
friction plate having at least a texture, a susceptor to support a substrate and
a bushing in the susceptor to guide the lift pin wherein the bushing contacts
the lift pin at a single annular point along the length of the lift pin. The
Examiner found that Or/Kono and White as applied to claim 16 disclose a
lift pin, stationary plate adapted to engage a lower bearing surface of the lift
pin, susceptor adapted to support a substrate, and a bushing positioned with
the susceptor to guide the lift pin through the suspector. Ans. 7. The
Examiner relied on Salzman to disclose a bushing 126 that contacts a lift pin
at only a single annular point along the length of the lift pin. Ans. 7. The
Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to modify Or or Kono
with such a bushing as an art recognized alternate equivalent bushing used
for the same purpose, and in the same environment that would require no
undue experimentation and produce no unexpected results. Ans. 7, 9-10.
Appellants argue that neither Kono nor Or discloses a “plate adapted
to engage the lower bearing surface, wherein a vertical orientation of the lift
pin may be maintained during lifting of the substrate by the lower bearing
surface engaging the plate, wherein the plate is a stationary friction plate
comprised of at least a texture” as called for in claim 21 and Salzman does
Appeal 2010-006915
Application 11/140,777

9
not cure these deficiencies. App. Br. 20-21; Reply Br. 16. As discussed
supra for claim 16, Or and Kono disclose a friction plate comprising at least
a texture so there are no deficiencies for Salzman to cure in respect to claim
21 and the recited friction plate comprised of at least a texture. As such, we
sustain the rejection of claim 21 and its dependent claim 22.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Drage, Litschel, and White is REVERSED.
The rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Or and White is AFFIRMED.
The rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kono and White is AFFIRMED.
The rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Drage and White is REVERSED.
The rejection of claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Or or Kono in view of White and Salzman is 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

JRG