Ex Parte Bonora et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2017

11644240 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2017)

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.
11/644,240 12/22/2006 Anthony C. Bonora ASTGP151 5535
114173 7590
MPG LLP / Brooks
710 Lakeway Drive
Suite 200
Sunnyvale, CA 94085
EXAMINER
BERRY JR, WILLIE WENDELL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3652
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2017 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 ANTHONY C. BONORA, ROGER G. HINE, and
THEODORE W. ROGERS
Appeal 2014-005002
Application 11/644,240
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Anthony C. Bonora et al. (Appellants) seek our review under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 29, 30, 32,
34^42, and 44^47. Appeal Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2014-005002
Application 11/644,240
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ claimed subject matter relates to load ports used in the
storage of semiconductor wafers. Spec. 1:18—20. Claims 29, 38, and 45 are
independent. Claim 29 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is
reproduced below.
29: A system for storing and accessing semiconductor wafers
for interfacing with a processing tool, comprising:
a load port defined by a first plate having an access port
defined therein, the first plate of the load port being securable to
the processing tool;
a first container support location defined at the access
port, said access port enabling transfers of semiconductor
wafers between the first container support location and the
processing tool;
a second container support location defined above and
vertically aligned with the first container support location;
a third container support location defined below and
vertically aligned with the first container support location; and
a transfer module defined by a second plate distinct from
the first plate and a container transport mechanism operably
coupled to the second plate, the second plate including a track,
the container transport mechanism configured to move
vertically along the track, the second plate of the transfer
module being securable to the processing tool at a location that
is adjacent to the first plate on either a left adjacent side or a
right adjacent side of the first plate, and wherein the transfer
module is configured for moving containers among the first,
second and third container support locations;
wherein the load port and the transfer module are each
independently detachable from the processing tool;
wherein the first plate defines a width to accommodate
only a single column of vertically aligned container support
locations; and
2
Appeal 2014-005002
Application 11/644,240
wherein the second plate defines a width substantially
similar to the width defined by the first plate;
wherein said first plate and said second plate conform to
a Box Opener/Loader to Tool Standard Interface.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).
THE EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied upon the following prior art references in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Nulman US 2002/0187024 A1
Bonora US 6,612,797 B1
Danna US 7,419,346 B2
THE REJECTIONS
Appellants seek review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 29, 30, 36-39, 41, 42, 45, and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Danna and Nulman.
2. Claims 32, 34, 35, 40, 44, and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Danna, Nulman, and Bonora.
ANALYSIS
Claim 29 requires a first plate that “defines a width to accommodate
only a single column of vertically aligned container locations.” Appeal Br.
16 (Claims App.). Independent claims 38 and 45 contain the same
limitation. Id. at 18, 20 (Claims App.). The Examiner found that Danna
discloses this limitation because Danna discloses a plate 102 “having a width
to accommodate two container supports side-by-side, which encompasses a
Dec. 12, 2002
Sept. 2, 2003
Sept. 2, 2008
3
Appeal 2014-005002
Application 11/644,240
plate having a width to accommodate a single container support and
therefore meeting the limitation of claim 29.” Answer 7 (relying on Danna,
Fig. 12). The Examiner also found that Danna discloses the limitation
because Danna discloses a plate 102 “accommodating a single container
support.” Id.
Appellants argue that Danna does not disclose a plate that “defines a
width to accommodate only a single column of vertically aligned container
support locations” because Danna’s plate includes “a width that
accommodates two adjacent load ports on the same plate.” Appeal Br. 10.
According to Appellants, the claims require “a plate defining a width to
accommodate only a single column of vertically aligned container support
locations,” and the “Examiner admits that Danna discloses a plate capable of
accommodating two container supports side-by-side.” Reply Br. 4.
We agree with Appellants. The Examiner acknowledges, and we
agree, that Danna discloses plates 102 capable of accommodating two
container supports side-by-side. See Answer 7; Danna, Fig. 12. The
Examiner’s first position relies on this aspect of the plate width, and finds
that a plate accommodating two supports side-by-side encompasses a width
accommodating a single support. Answer 7. This finding does not mention
or properly take into account the language of the claims, which requires a
width that accommodates “only a single column” of support locations.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). The inclusion of the term “only” in the claims
excludes widths that accommodate more than one column of support
locations, including Danna’s plate width that accommodates two supports
side-by-side. See Danna, Fig. 12.
4
Appeal 2014-005002
Application 11/644,240
The Examiner also found that Danna discloses a plate with a single
container support rather than two arranged side-by-side. See Answer 7
(presumably referring to the middle of Danna’s Figure 12); Danna, Fig. 12
(middle plate 102 including one load port assembly 104). Although Danna
discloses a plate 102 with a single load port assembly 104 in the middle of
Figure 12, the width of that plate 102 appears to be the same as the other
plates 102 that accommodate two port assemblies 104 side-by-side. See
Danna, Fig. 12. The Examiner does not suggest that the plate 102 having a
single load port assembly 104 has a width that does not accommodate two
port assemblies 104 arranged side-by-side. The claims require more than a
plate that accommodates a single column of supports; they require a plate
defining “a width to accommodate only a single column” of support
locations. Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). The Examiner’s
analysis of Danna’s Figure 12 does not adequately support the finding that
the width of any plate 102 accommodates only a single column of support
locations, and we find no support for such a finding in Figure 12.
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 29,
38, and 45. Because the dependent claims contain the same limitations, and
because the Examiner did not rely on Bonora in any way that would cure the
unsupported finding from Danna discussed above (see Answer 6), we do not
sustain the rejections of those claims for the same reason.
5
Appeal 2014-005002
Application 11/644,240
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 29, 30, 32,
3AA2, and 4AA7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED.
6