Ex Parte Price et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 28, 2014

12776235 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2014)

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