Ex Parte Michael et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 18, 201511779450 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 11/779,450 07/18/2007 Tan Kian Shing Michael 2006-0871 2208 7590 02/18/2015 STEPHEN A. GRATTON 2764 South Braun Way Lakewood, CO 80228 EXAMINER OSELE, MARK A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1745 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/18/2015 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 TAN KIAN SHING MICHAEL, NEO CHEE PENG, and TAN CHEE YONG ____________ Appeal 2013-002827 Application 11/779,4501 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and ERIC B. GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judges. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a decision of the Primary Examiner to reject claims 1–3, 8, and 9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM. 1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Micron Technology, Inc. (Appeal Brief filed July 10, 2012, hereinafter “Br.,” 3). Appeal 2013-002827 Application 11/779,450 2 BACKGROUND The invention relates to a method for removing a tape, in particular a protective tape, from a substrate such as a semiconductor (Specification, hereinafter “Spec.,” ¶¶ 1–6; Abst.). Representative claim 1 is reproduced from page 18 of the Appeal Brief (Claims App’x), with the disputed limitations indicated in italicized text, as follows: 1. A method for removing a tape from a substrate comprising: providing a tape removal mechanism comprising a peel head, a peel tape on the peel head, a sensor in signal communication with an analyzer and a control system configured to control movement of the peel head to position the peel head in a first position with the peel tape spaced from the tape on the substrate, to move the peel head in a first direction towards the substrate to a second position with the peel tape in contact with the tape, and to move the peel head in a second direction to peel the tape from the substrate; determining with the peel head in the first position an actual distance D between the peel tape and the tape on the substrate using the sensor and the analyzer; moving the peel head and the peel tape in the first direction towards the tape on the substrate by an amount equal to the actual distance D to the second position using the control system responsive to determining the actual distance D; pressing the peel tape into contact with the tape with a selected force using the control system responsive to determining the actual distance D; and moving the peel head in the second direction across the substrate to peel the tape from the substrate using the control system. Appeal 2013-002827 Application 11/779,450 3 THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected the claims as follows: I. Claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or (e) as anticipated by Ametani;2 and II. Claims 3, 8, and 9 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ametani in view of Abuku.3 (Examiner’s Answer entered September 26, 2012, hereinafter “Ans.,” at 2–6; Final Office Action entered April 19, 2012 at 2–6). DISCUSSION I The Appellants state that claims 1 and 2 are argued together (Br. 12). Therefore, we confine our discussion to claim 1, which we select as representative pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The Examiner found that Ametani describes, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102, every limitation of claim 1 (Ans. 2–3). The Appellants contend that the Examiner’s anticipation rejection is flawed because, “[i]n Ametani[,] the actual distance D is not determined, and the second position of the peel head is not derived from movement by this exact distance D” (Br. 13). We affirm for the reasons given by the Examiner. “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled 2 United States Patent Application Publication 2007/0119543 A1 published May 31, 2007 (based on an application filed November 17, 2006). 3 United States Patent 4,870,288 issued September 26, 1989. Appeal 2013-002827 Application 11/779,450 4 in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968). Ametani teaches an attaching operation in which the attachment of peeling tape to a wafer with surface protective film is “accurately controlled” (Ametani ¶¶ 2, 9). Consistent with the Examiner’s findings (Ans. 4–5), Ametani plainly teaches the use of height sensor 71 for detecting the height of peeling tape 4 engaged with peeling roll 46 and the use of position sensor 72 that, inter alia, detects the height of surface protective film 11 attached to wafer 20 (Ametani ¶¶ 58, 59 and Figs. 1, 2). According to Ametani, these sensors are connected to control unit 90 and are used to control downward motion of peeling roll 46 on the edge 11a of the surface of protective film 11 (id. at ¶¶ 59, 63, 64; Figs. 1, 2). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have drawn a reasonable inference from Ametani’s disclosures that Ametani’s method involves determination by the control unit 90 of the distance between the peeling tape and the surface protective film on the wafer, as required by claim 1. Indeed, Ametani’s paragraph 20, which is cited by the Appellants, supports the Examiner’s finding (“the height adjusting means adjusts the height of the peeling tape attaching means based on the thickness of the wafer and the thickness of the surface protective film input from the input means and/or the height of the peeling tape detected by the height detection means”). For these reasons and those set forth in the Answer, we uphold Rejection I. Appeal 2013-002827 Application 11/779,450 5 II The Appellants argue that “there is no suggestion in Abuku . . . of using a capacitance sensor to sense the actual distance between a peel head (or a peel tape) and tape on a substrate” (Br. 16). In addition, the Appellants contend that “the height sensor 71 of Ametani appears to be a mechanical apparatus rather than an optical sensor, which is incapable of determining the position of a wafer[,]” and that “with only the height being detected by a height sensor in Ametani, there would be no reason to use a pair of capacitance sensors as in Abuku . . . without a fundamental redesign of the apparatus” (id.). We discern no persuasive merit in the Appellants’ arguments for the same reasons given by the Examiner on pages 5–6 of the Answer. Therefore, we also uphold Rejection II. SUMMARY The Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or (e) of claims 1 and 2 as anticipated by Ametani is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 3, 8, and 9 as unpatentable over Ametani in view of Abuku 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). AFFIRMED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation