11145617 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 16, 2012)

Ex Parte Loo

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 16, 2012

11145617 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 16, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte JOHN LOO ____________ Appeal 2011-002989 Application 11/145,617 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, HUBERT C. LORIN, and KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-002989 Application 11/145,617 2 Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 11-19 and 27-37. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Claim 36 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 36. An apparatus, comprising: three elongated members spatially arranged so that at least one semiconductor workpiece may be positioned there between; one or more reduced profile support members projecting radially inwardly from each of the elongated members, each of the reduced profile support members comprising: an upper surface for receiving a portion of the at least one semiconductor workpiece; an under surface; a first lateral edge; and a second lateral edge, wherein each of the elongated members comprises a width substantially greater than a width of the one or more reduced profile support members projecting radially inwardly therefrom. Claim 37, the only other independent claim, similarly recites one or more reduced profile support members, each having an upper surface, an under surface, a first lateral edge, a second lateral edge, and a width as recited in claim 36. The Examiner maintains the following rejections: Appeal 2011-002989 Application 11/145,617 3 1) claims 11, 12, 16-19, 27, 28, 32-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ban (US 4,263,872 , issued Apr. 28, 1981 ); and 2) claims 13, 14, 15, 29, 30, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ban in view of Jahani (US 6,340,090 B1, issued Jan. 22, 2002). MAIN ISSUE ON APPEAL Did the Examiner err in finding that the Ban reference describes the claimed “reduced profile support members” as required in independent claims 36 and 37? We answer this question in the affirmative. PRINCIPLES OF LAW “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” See Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631-32 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007), quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). ANALYSIS Appellant’s Specification discusses that prior art tab designs for supporting semiconductor workpieces “present[ed] a relatively large footprint in contact with the wafer, resulting in conductive heat transfer that Appeal 2011-002989 Application 11/145,617 4 is sufficient to produce a localized cooling of the wafer” which is undesirable (Spec. 2-3, para. [0004]). The invention is directed to overcoming these disadvantages (Spec. 3, para. [0005]) by creating a “smaller footprint” that “provides more thermal resistance against conductive heat transfer” between the semiconductor workpiece and the support member (Spec. 7, para. [0023]). Appellant argues that the Examiner has not shown how Ban identically discloses a reduced profile support member which includes a first lateral edge, a second lateral edge, and wherein each of the elongated members comprises a width substantially greater than a width of the one or more reduced profile support members projecting radially inwardly therefrom as recited in each of claims 36 and 37. We agree. Specifically, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has taken an unreasonably broad interpretation of the aforementioned claim limitations when considered in light of the Specification for the reasons explained in the briefs (see generally, App. Br. 11-15; Reply Br. 3- 10 (explaining that the circular profile of the unnotched portions of Ban’s circular rods 100, 102, 104 are not reduced profile support members as claimed, as a circle only includes a single circumferential edge and thus does not have the claimed first and second lateral edges, nor does the circular rod of Ban have a width substantially greater than the width of a reduced profile support member having first and second lateral sides)). Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner's interpretation of the disputed claim language is overly broad and not reasonable. As such, we cannot sustain either the anticipation rejection or the obviousness rejection both of which rely on these flawed interpretations. Appeal 2011-002989 Application 11/145,617 5 Accordingly, both of the Examiner's rejections are reversed. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s § 102 and § 103 rejections. ORDER REVERSED ssl