EBARA CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 14, 2020

2020003884 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2020)

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.
15/313,990 11/25/2016 Atsushi SHIOKAWA 4055-0123 8571
6449 7590 12/14/2020
ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
607 14TH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
ZERVIGON, RUDY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/14/2020 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
PTO-PAT-Email@rfem.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte ATSUSHI SHIOKAWA,
TETSURO SUGIURA, SHINICHI SEKIGUCHI,
TAKASHI KYOTANI, TETSUO KOMAI,
NORIO KIMURA, KEIICHI ISHIKAWA,
and TORU OSUGA
__________

Appeal 2020-003884
Application 15/313,990
Technology Center 1700
___________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant1 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1–8 and 24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). A hearing was held on December 8, 2020.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ebara Corporation.
Appeal Brief dated January 29, 2020 (“App. Br.”), at 3.
Appeal 2020-003884
Application 15/313,990

2

We REVERSE.
The claimed subject matter relates to a vacuum evacuation system for
evacuating a gas from a plurality of process chambers for use in, for example, a
semiconductor device manufacturing apparatus. Spec. ¶ 1. The system comprises
a plurality of first vacuum pumps which are coupled to a plurality of process
chambers, respectively, a collecting pipe coupled to the plurality of first vacuum
pumps, a second vacuum pump coupled to the collecting pipe, and a third vacuum
pump coupled to the second vacuum pump.
In a conventional vacuum evacuation system, the Appellant discloses that a
first vacuum pump and a second vacuum pump are arranged on different floors.
Spec. ¶ 39. In the Appellant’s claimed system, however, the plurality of first
vacuum pumps and the second vacuum pump are disposed in a first room, such as
a clean room, and the third vacuum pump is disposed in a second room which is
separated from the first room. Spec. ¶ 38. Because the first vacuum pumps and
the second vacuum pump are disposed in the same room, the Appellant discloses
that the collecting pipe which couples the second vacuum pump to the first vacuum
pumps can be short. Spec. ¶ 38. “As a result, a pipe conductance is increased, and
a volumetric capacity required for the second vacuum pump . . . can be reduced.
Therefore, the number of second vacuum pump[s] . . . can be reduced.” Spec. ¶ 39.
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the
Appeal Brief. The limitation at issue is italicized.
1. A vacuum evacuation system for evacuating a gas from a
plurality of process chambers, comprising:
a plurality of first vacuum pumps which can be coupled to the
plurality of process chambers, respectively;
a collecting pipe coupled to the plurality of first vacuum
pumps;
Appeal 2020-003884
Application 15/313,990

3

a second vacuum pump coupled to the collecting pipe, the
plurality of first vacuum pumps and the second vacuum pump being
disposed in a first room; and
a third vacuum pump coupled to the second vacuum pump, the
third vacuum pump being disposed in a second room which is
separated from the first room.
App. Br. 17.
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection on appeal:
(1) claims 1–3 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Xu et
al.2 in view of Schofield et al.;3 and
(2) claims 4–7 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Xu in
view of Schofield and further in view of Liepert.4
B. DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds Xu discloses a vacuum evacuation system for
evacuating a gas from a plurality of process chambers, wherein the system
comprises a plurality of first vacuum pumps 420, a collecting pipe 430, 310
coupled to the first vacuum pumps, and a second vacuum pump 414 coupled to the
collecting pipe. Final Act. 2.5 The Examiner finds Xu’s system also includes a
third vacuum pump 412 coupled to the second vacuum pump 414. Final Act. 3–4.
The Appellant argues that Xu does not teach that the pumps are located in
different rooms as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6. The Examiner recognizes as
much. See Final Act. 4–5 (finding that Xu does not teach that first vacuum pumps
420 and second vacuum pump 414 are disposed in a first room and third vacuum
pump 412 is disposed in a second room as claimed).

2 CN 101922437 (A), dated December 22, 2010 (“Xu”).
3 US 2017/0350395 A1, published December 7, 2017 (“Schofield”).
4 US 2005/0254981 A1, published November 17, 2005 (“Liepert”).
5 Final Office Action dated June 28, 2019.
Appeal 2020-003884
Application 15/313,990

4

Nonetheless, the Examiner turns to Schofield. Final Act. 5. Schofield, like
Xu, discloses a vacuum evacuation system for evacuating a gas from a plurality of
process chambers. See Schofield ¶¶ 2, 112. An embodiment of the disclosed
system is illustrated in Schofield Figure 1, reproduced below.

Schofield Figure 1 is a schematic view of a vacuum
pumping arrangement according to an
embodiment of Schofield’s invention.
The Examiner finds Schofield discloses process chambers 22, each having a
first vacuum pump 50, and a third vacuum pump 72 disposed on different floors
and thus different rooms as claimed. Final Act. 5. More specifically, Schofield
discloses that first vacuum pump 50 is disposed on a first floor 60 and vacuum
Appeal 2020-003884
Application 15/313,990

5

pumps 88 and 72 are disposed on a second floor. See Schofield ¶ 112; Schofield
Fig. 1.6
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art “to separate Xu’s pumps across floors, and, consequently, rooms as
taught by Schofield . . . for scaling Xu’s manufacturing hardware.” Final Act. 5.
In other words, the Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to expand Xu’s system to additional floors, as taught by Schofield,
to increase the footprint of Xu’s system and thus the capacity of the system for
larger scale productions. Advisory Action dated October 10, 2019 (“Adv. Act.”).
The Appellant argues that “Schofield merely teaches providing all of the
first pumps 50 in one room, and all pumps downstream therefrom in a second
room.” App. Br. 12 (emphasis omitted); see also App. Br. 12–13 (arguing that
“Schofield at best teaches only first pumps 50 on one floor 60, and second low
vacuum pumps 72, 88 on another floor” (emphasis omitted)).7 App. Br. 11.
Moreover, the Appellant argues that Xu teaches pumps 414 and 412 are part of a
low vacuum unit 410, and Schofield teaches locating low vacuum pumps (72, 88)
in a room separate from the first pumps (50). App. Br. 14. For those reasons, the
Appellant argues that the combination of Xu and Schofield does not teach

6 In another embodiment, Schofield shows two of four first pumps 50 disposed on
one floor and pumps 88 and 72 disposed on a second floor. The other two first
pumps 50 are disposed on the second floor with pumps 88 and 72. See Schofield
¶ 157; Schofield Fig. 2.
7 The Appellant argues that Schofield only teaches two pump stages. App. Br. 10.
First pumps 50 are said to constitute the first pump stage and second pumps 72 and
88, which are in parallel, are said to constitute the second pump stage. App. Br.
11, 12; see also Examiner’s Answer dated March 5, 2020 (“Ans.”), at 7
(recognizing that “Schofield only has two pumps is [sic, in] separate rooms”).
Appeal 2020-003884
Application 15/313,990

6

providing a second pump in a first room with a plurality of first pumps as recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 11.
In response, the Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have disposed Xu’s pumps in different rooms, as recited in claim 1, “for scaling”
or for expanding Xu’s system to additional floors. Ans. 8; Adv. Act. The
Examiner also “notes that Schofield . . . teaches that downstream positions of
plumbing components [are] vital in protecting against ‘pressure variations and
back migration of process gases.’” Ans. 8. However, neither of those reasons
explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would have disposed Xu’s second
pump 414 in a first room with Xu’s first pumps 420, as claimed, rather than in a
second room with Xu’s third pump 412, as suggested by Schofield. See Reply Br.
38 (at most, the combination of Xu and Schofield suggests placing Xu’s high
vacuum evacuation device 420 in one room and Xu’s low vacuum evacuation
device 410, which comprises pumps 412 and 414, in a separate room).
In the alternative, the Examiner contends that “the duplication of parts is
obvious.” Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 9 (stating that “the Examiner’s citation of
reproduction of parts is provided as an alternative grounds/motivation for the
Examiner’s obviousness”). The Examiner, however, has not identified which parts
in Xu’s system the Examiner proposes to duplicate and where those unidentified
duplicated parts would be located, i.e., in a first room with Xu’s first pumps 420 or
in a second room with Xu’s third pump 412.
Based on the foregoing, a preponderance of the evidence of record does not
support the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, the obviousness
rejection of claims 1–3 and 8 is not sustained.

8 Reply Brief dated April 27, 2020.
Appeal 2020-003884
Application 15/313,990

7

The Examiner’s reliance on Liepert does not cure the deficiencies in the
obviousness rejection of claim 1 identified above. See Final Act. 7. Therefore, the
obviousness rejection of claims 4–7 and 24 also is not sustained.
C. CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 8 103 Xu, Schofield 1–3, 8
4–7, 24 103 Xu, Schofield,
Liepert
4–7, 24
Overall
Outcome
1–8, 24

REVERSED