Ex Parte FAN et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 201412244548 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 12/244,548 10/02/2008 Chih-Shen FAN 0941/2293PUS1 2190 60601 7590 09/24/2014 Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C. 4000 Legato Road Suite 310 FAIRFAX, VA 22033 EXAMINER LIU, CHIA HOWMICHAEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2882 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/24/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte CHIH-SHEN FAN,1 Li-Wei Chen, and I-Chin Sung ________________ Appeal 2013-000982 Application 12/244,548 Technology Center 2800 ________________ Before MARK NAGUMO, N. HITNEY ILSON, and JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judges. NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Chih-Shen Fan, Li-Wei Chen, and I-Chin Sung (“Fan”) timely appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection2 of claims 1-19, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6. We affirm. 1 The Real Party in Interest is listed as VisEra Technologies Company Limited. (Appeal Brief, filed 11 June 2012 (“Br.”), 2.) 2 Office action mailed 8 November 2011 (“Final Rejection”; cited as “FR”). Appeal 2013-000982 Application 12/244,548 2 OPINION A. Introduction3 The subject matter on appeal relates to an adapter frame that holds small-sized masks (used in photolithographic processes) in an aligner suitable for larger-sized masks corresponding to larger sized wafers. (Spec. 1 [0003].) Claim 1 is representative of the dispositive issues and reads: An adapter, comprising: a frame including an inner edge with a first side, a second side, a third side and a fourth side, wherein the first side and the fourth side are opposite and the second side and the third side are opposite; at least two fixed hold elements connected to the first side of the inner edge of the frame; a plurality of first flexible clip elements connected to the second and third sides of the inner edge of the frame, and at least two second flexible clip elements connected to the fourth side of the inner edge of the frame. (Claims App., Br. 23; some indentation, paragraphing, and emphasis added.) 3 Application 12/244,548, Adaptor of an aligner system to hold small-sized mask using clips, 2 October 2008. We refer to the “ʼ548 Specification,” and cite it as “Spec.” Appeal 2013-000982 Application 12/244,548 3 The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:4 A. Claims 1-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in view of Heerens.5 A1. Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Heerens. B. Findings of Fact Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a preponderance of the evidence of record. C. Discussion As the Appellant, Fan bears the procedural burden of showing harmful error in the Examiner’s rejections. See, e.g., Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 409-10 (2009) (“Lower court cases make clear that courts have correlated review of ordinary administrative proceedings to appellate review of civil cases in this respect. . . . [T]he party seeking reversal normally must explain why the erroneous ruling caused harm.”) (citations omitted). See also, In re Chapman, 595 F.3d 1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (discussing the role of harmless error in appeals from decisions of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (now, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board)). Fan’s principal argument is that the Examiner erred in identifying Heerens’s two top retainers 2036 as the fixed hold elements required by the 4 Examiner’s Answer mailed 19 July 2012 (“Ans.”). 5 Gert-Jan Heerens and Bastiaan Lambertus Wilhelmus Marinus van de Ven, Assembly of a reticle holder and a reticle, U.S. Patent No. 7,236,233 B2 (26 June 2007). Appeal 2013-000982 Application 12/244,548 4 claims, because those elements are disclosed by Heerens as being adjustable between several blocking positions. (Br. 14, l. 1-8.) Fan urges that the terms “‘adjustable’ and ‘fixed’ really are opposite concepts for those skilled in the art, and the ‘adjustable retainer’ cannot be met by [sic: cannot meet] the fixed hold elements in claim 1.” (Id. at 16, ll. 9-11.) This argument is not persuasive of harmful error. During examination, claim terms are given “the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We shall not, however, read limitations into the claims from preferred embodiments. In re Am. Acad. Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In the present case, the ʼ548 Specification does not provide a definition of the term “fixed.” As the Examiner finds, when the retainer is locked in the blocking position, “[t]he locking device causes the retainer 203 to become fixed.” (FR 6, ll. 17-18.) Indeed, Heerens teaches that “[e]ach movable reticle retaining element 2 is arranged to be fixed in the blocking position” (Heerens, col. 13, ll. 23-24; emphasis added), and that “fixation of each of the movable reticle retaining elements 2 may be achieved in various ways.” (Id. at ll. 45-46; emphasis added.) Fan admits that “[o]nly when the locking device works, the position of the adjustable retainers 2 is fixed for a 6 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, we present labels of elements in Figures in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document. Appeal 2013-000982 Application 12/244,548 5 while, . . . ”. (Br. 14, ll. 13-14; emphasis added.) In the absence of a definition of the term “fixed” in the Specification, and in the absence of express limitations in the claims that exclude “fixed for a while,” we are not persuaded of harmful error in the Examiner’s interpretation of the term “fixed,” and thus are not persuaded of harmful error in the finding that this limitation is met. Fan raises no other substantive arguments regarding the rejection of claim 1. We therefore affirm the rejection of claim 1 and all non-distinctly argued claims. Fan urges that claim 4 is patentable because Heerens “also fails to disclose the fixed hold elements supporting a sidewall of the mask.” (Br. 16, ll. 21-22; emphasis omitted.) Rather, according to Fan, Heerens teaches the retaining elements “nearly or substantially making contact with the reticle edge A without applying a clamping force thereon.” (Id. at 17, ll. 1-3, citing Heerens, col. 13, ll. 27-36.) The ʼ548 Specification does not provide a definition of the term “support.” A fixed element adjacent to a reticle that prevents the reticle from moving laterally may be fairly said to “support” the reticle. We are thus not persuaded of harmful error in the Examiner’s interpretation of the term “support,” or in the Examiner’s finding that this limitation is met by Heerens. Fan urges that the limitation of claim 6, that the “first flexible clip element clip third and fourth sidewalls and portions of the bottom surface of the mask” is not met by Heerens “because the first flexible clip elements clipping third and fourth sidewalls must generate a clipping force, but Heerens teaches not applying a clamping force.” (Br. 18, ll. 9-14.) The Appeal 2013-000982 Application 12/244,548 6 Examiner responds that Heerens teaches that the retainers hold the reticle by “force fixation, which is holding the reticle through force from the retainers. As a result, the retainers support and contact the reticle. This is equivalent to the claimed clipping force.” (Ans. 10, ll. 21-24.) Fan does not dispute this finding. In the absence of a definition of the term “clipping force,” we are not persuaded of harmful error in the rejection of claim 6.7 Fan’s arguments for the patentability of independent claim 10, drawn to a process of loading a mask into the adapter are merely cumulative with the arguments made for claims 1, 4, and 6, and we find them unpersuasive for the same reasons. Fan urges, finally, that claim 18, which depends from claim 1, is patentable because the Examiner’s rationale that using more clip elements would hold the reticle in place better and allow for fewer degrees of freedom of movement “are wrong in both aspects of science and engineering.” (Br. 21, l. 3.) Fan argues the “[t]he extra clip element arranged parallel to the existing clip element on the second/third side does not reduce any displacement and deformation of the whole physical system. It is a common knowledge in mechanics engineering.” (Id. at ll. 8-10.) These arguments (and the others in this paragraph of the Brief), are not supported by citation 7 We note that claim 1 specifies that the first flexible clip element is connected to the second and third sides of the inner edge of the frame, while the “second flexible clip elements” are connected to the fourth side of the inner edge of the frame. Thus, claim 6 appears to lack proper antecedent basis for the first flexible clip clipping the fourth sidewall. We trust this discrepancy will be addressed in any future examination. Appeal 2013-000982 Application 12/244,548 7 to evidence of record, nor are they explained by any substantial analysis. The Examiner’s point, as we understand it, is that more elements in blocking positions would have been expected to result in less freedom of movement or greater security—like a belt and suspenders, to use a hackneyed phrase. We are not persuaded of harmful error in the rejection of claim 18. C. Order We affirm the rejection of claims 1-19. 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 cam Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation