Ex Parte Price et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 28, 201412776235 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 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. 12/776,235 05/07/2010 J.B. Price C.ASTGP189.DIVI.C 1830 114173 7590 05/28/2014 MPG LLP / Brooks 710 Lakeway Drive Suite 200 Sunnyvale, CA 94085 EXAMINER MOORE, KARLA A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1716 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/28/2014 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 J.B. PRICE, JED KELLER, LAURENCE DULMAGE and DAVID CHENG ____________________ Appeal 2012-012101 Application 12/776,235 Technology Center 1700 ____________________ Before CHUNG K. PAK, CHARLES F. WARREN, and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-012101 Application 12/776,235 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 through 6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The claims are directed to a wafer transport mechanism. App. Br. 1-2. Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below: 1. A wafer transport mechanism, comprising: an enclosure, the enclosure having only two openings for transferring wafers, the two openings defined by a first opening and a second opening; a first gate valve coupled to the first opening, the first gate valve configured to be coupled to a vacuum chamber, and a second gate valve coupled to the second opening, the second gate valve configured to be coupled to a process chamber, wherein operation of the first and second gate valves facilitates operation of the enclosure under a vacuum; a rotatable assembly disposed within the enclosure; a first linear drive coupled to the rotatable assembly, the first linear drive configured to extend a first wafer support through one of the first or second openings when the first wafer support is rotated to a position proximate to the one of the first or second openings by the rotatable assembly; a second linear drive coupled to the rotatable assembly, the second linear drive configured to extend a second wafer support through the opening opposite the one of the first or second openings when the first wafer support is rotated to the position proximate to the one of the first or second openings; and Appeal 2012-012101 Application 12/776,235 3 wherein operation of the first and second linear drives enables independent placement of an unprocessed wafer into the process chamber or independent placement of a processed wafer into the vacuum chamber. The Examiner relied on the following references in rejecting the appealed subject matter: Williams US 5,067,218 Nov. 26, 1991 Lorenz US 5,135,349 Aug. 4, 1992 Kroeker US 5,789,878 Aug. 4, 1998 Appellants, App. Br. 3, request review of the following rejections from the Examiner’s final office action: I. Claims 1-4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Williams and Lorenz. II. Claims 5 and 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Williams, Lorenz, and Kroeker. OPINION Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) The dispositive issue on appeal for these rejections is: Did the Examiner err in determining that the combined teachings of Williams and Lorenz would have led one skilled in the art to modify the wafer processing system of Williams by replacing Williams’ wafer transport arms with the robotic wafer handling system of Lorenz to arrive to the subject matter of independent claim 1?1, 2 1 We limit our discussion to independent claim 1. 2 A discussion of Kroeker, cited in the separate rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Ans. 7-8), is unnecessary for disposition of the Appeal 2012-012101 Application 12/776,235 4 After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and the Examiner, we answer in the negative and AFFIRM for the reasons presented by the Examiner and add the following. The Examiner found that Williams discloses a wafer transport mechanism for transporting wafers comprising an enclosure having only two openings, each opening with a gate valve for coupling the mechanism to a workstation. Ans. 5; Williams Figure 2, col. 3, ll. 10-52. The Examiner found that Williams does not disclose the rotatable transport assembly required by the subject matter of independent claim 1. Ans. 5. The Examiner found that Lorenz discloses a robotic wafer handling assembly comprising a compact rotatable assembly (14) coupled to a linear wafer drive that may be used for simultaneously and independently transferring two wafers (e.g., a processed wafer and an unprocessed wafer) between two areas of a processing apparatus. Id. at 5-6; Lorenz Figure 1, col. 2, l. 67-col. 3, l. 2, col. 5, ll. 29-52. The Examiner found that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Lorenz’s rotatable assembly in the wafer transfer system of Williams to provide a robotic handling system with a compact overall operating envelope while also providing increased throughput and operating flexibility as taught by Lorenz et al. Ans. 6. Appellants argue that the combination of Williams and Lorenz would require substantial redesign and reconfiguration of both of the systems because Williams’ wafer transport arms are designed to facilitate movement of wafers to and from various chambers in a substantially horizontal manner present appeal. The Examiner relied upon this reference for features not related to the dispositive issue. Appeal 2012-012101 Application 12/776,235 5 to enable easier alignment of components. Id. at 5; Williams col. 4, ll. 50- 53. According to Appellants, Lorenz’s wafer transport assembly is configured to be utilized in a centrally positioned transfer chamber for moving wafers between various cassettes and process stations. App. Br. 5-6; Lorenz col. 4, ll. 5-23. We are unpersuaded by these arguments and agree with the Examiner’s obviousness determination. Ans. 4-8. “[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.” In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see also In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (“Etter’s assertions that Azure cannot be incorporated in Ambrosio are basically irrelevant, the criterion being not whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.”); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . .”). As noted by the Examiner, both Williams and Lorenz disclose using a wafer transport mechanism to transport wafers between processing stations. Ans. 5-6; Williams col. 3, ll. 10-44; Lorenz col. 5, ll. 20-39. The Examiner reasoned that it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to use known wafer transport mechanisms, such as the ones disclosed by Lorenz, as an alternative to the wafer transfer mechanism of Williams to transport wafers between processing stations. Ans. 6. That is, the Examiner is substituting the known wafer transporting mechanism of Lorenz for the known wafer transfer mechanism of Williams with the Appeal 2012-012101 Application 12/776,235 6 reasonable expectation of success of transporting wafers between processing stations. Id. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007); see also In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301 (CCPA 1982) (“Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious.”); In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Because the applicants merely substituted one element known in the art for a known equivalent, this court affirms [the rejection for obviousness].”). Appellants have not adequately explained why one skilled in the art would not have done so. Appellants presented additional arguments with respect to dependent claims 2-6 on page 8 of the Appeal Brief. These arguments merely point out that the cited art does not teach the respective claimed elements and do not address the Examiner’s reasoning for rejecting these claims (see Brief, generally). Statements which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for patentability of the claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-6 for the reasons given above and presented by the Examiner. ORDER The Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1-6 are affirmed. TIME PERIOD 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). Appeal 2012-012101 Application 12/776,235 7 AFFIRMED bar Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation