Ex Parte Feng et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 22, 2012

10982029 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 22, 2012)

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.
10/982,029 11/05/2004 Jian-Huei Feng HSJ920040363US1 8964
45552 7590 08/23/2012
HITACHI C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP
123 WESTRIDGE DRIVE
WATSONVILLE, CA 95076
EXAMINER
BLAN, NICOLE R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1714
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte JIAN-HUEI FENG, HUNG-CHIN GUTHRIE,
QUANG LE, and JAMES NYSTROM
________________

Appeal 2011-009156
Application 10/982,029
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-009156
Application 10/982,029

1
The Examiner finally rejected claims 9-12, 14, and 15 of Application
10/982,029 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appellants seek reversal of
these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
Background
The ’029 application describes methods for supporting wafers within
wafer processing equipment during the processes of manufacturing
semiconductors and hard disk drives. Spec. ¶ [0001]. During wafer
processing, it is important to maintain the wafer in proper alignment within
the processing equipment. Id. at ¶ [0012]. Misaligned wafers can cause
interruptions in the wafer processing production flow because manual
intervention can be required to restore normal production. Id. Manual
intervention is costly and can introduce contamination, resulting in
production defects. Id.
To address these problems, the ’029 application describes methods to
support and align a wafer while minimizing contamination opportunities and
rinsing wafers. Id. at ¶ [0013]. In particular, the ’029 application describes
the use of a wafer alignment nozzle to direct streams of fluid onto the
surface of a wafer. Id. at ¶ [0014].
In the conventional art, it is known to use a stream of water flowing
out of a central passage in a nozzle to support the underside of a wafer. Id. at
¶ [0027]. Because the water impinges only on a small area in the center of
the wafer, the wafer can tip and become misaligned. Id. If the diameter of
the central passage is increased to partially address this problem, then the
Appeal 2011-009156
Application 10/982,029

2
water pressure must be increased through the use of expensive pressure
boosting equipment. Id. at ¶¶ [0027]-[0028].
The ’029 application describes an alignment nozzle that purportedly
addresses these problems. Figure 1 of the ’029 application is reproduced
below:

Figure 1 is a cross sectional view of the alignment nozzle. Id. at ¶ [0015]. As
shown in Figure 1, the alignment nozzle has a central fluid passage 140 and
a plurality of angled fluid orifices 150. Id. at ¶ [0031]. The total cross
sectional area of the angled orifices 150 should be less than the total cross
sectional area of the central fluid passage 140. Id. at ¶ [0032]. The reduction
in cross sectional area increases the velocity of the fluid discharged from the
angled orifices 150 and eliminates the need for pressure boosting equipment.
Id. at ¶ [0033].
Claim 9 is the only independent claim on appeal. It is directed to a
method for using the alignment nozzle described in the ’029 application and
is reproduced below:
9. A method for supporting a wafer within wafer processing
equipment comprising:
Appeal 2011-009156
Application 10/982,029

3
flowing a fluid under pressure from a central fluid passage
through a plurality of angled fluid orifices, wherein a total cross
sectional area of said plurality of angled fluid orifices is less
than a total cross sectional area of said central fluid passage,
reduction in said total cross sectional area from the central fluid
passage to the total cross sectional area of the plurality of
angled fluid orifices causing an increase in pressure of said
fluid flowing through said plurality of angled fluid orifices such
that a pressure-boosting device is not required for said angled
fluid orifices;
spraying a fluid spray from said plurality of angled fluid
orifices set at angles relative to a central axis of a wafer
processing equipment, said spraying at angles comprising
spraying at non-perpendicular angles relative to a surface of a
wafer;
impinging said fluid spray against said surface of said wafer;
supporting said wafer with said fluid spray; and
wherein said fluid spray comprises a flow component parallel to
said surface of said wafer, said flow component directed away
from said central axis of said wafer processing equipment and
towards the edges of said wafer.
Supp. App. Br. 1.
Rejections
The Examiner finally rejected claims 9-12, 14, and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over U.S. Patent Application Publication
2002/0189638 A1 (“Luscher,” Dec. 19, 2002).
Discussion
The Examiner rejected the pending claims as obvious over Luscher. In
rejecting claim 9, the Examiner found that the only limitation that Luscher
did not directly teach or suggest was the claim’s requirement that the total
cross sectional area of the angled orifices be less than the cross sectional
Appeal 2011-009156
Application 10/982,029

4
area of the central fluid passage. Ans. 4. The Examiner determined that it
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to vary the
diameter of the orifice openings and to discover the optimum size range for
this parameter. Id. at 4-5 (citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA
1955)).
Appellants advance two arguments against this rejection:
(1) Appellants argue that Luscher teaches away from the claimed invention
because an embodiment of Luscher includes an exhaust manifold that is
coupled to a pump. Appellants argue that this use of a pump to provide a
pressure gradient teaches away from the claim limitation that a pressure
boosting device is not needed. App. Br. 7-8 (citing Luscher ¶¶ [0037],
[0042]). (2) Appellants argue that modifying Luscher to meet the claim
limitations would change the reference’s method of operation and that
Luscher cannot, therefore, be used to create a prima facie case of
obviousness. Id. at 8-9 (citing In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810 (CCPA 1959)).
For the reasons set forth below, we do not find these arguments
sufficient to overcome the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9.
First, we are not persuaded that Luscher teaches away from the
limitation in dispute, which the Examiner appears to have construed as
prohibiting the use of a pressure boosting device. As Appellants correctly
note, App. Br. 7 (citing W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983)), a prior art reference must be considered as a whole.
As the Examiner points out, the particular embodiment of Luscher the
Appellants rely upon describes the use of an exhaust pump, which does not
literally boost the pressure of the fluid supplied through Luscher’s orifices.
Ans. 5. Because Luscher states that the exhaust pumps are only used in one
Appeal 2011-009156
Application 10/982,029

5
embodiment of Luscher’s system, id. at 8 (citing Luscher ¶ [0037]), and that
in other embodiments the exhaust system only “preferably” includes pumps,
id. (citing Luscher ¶ [0042]), the Examiner correctly determined that
Luscher does not require the use of an exhaust pump to create a pressure
differential. Luscher, therefore, does not teach away from the claim
limitation construed as prohibiting the use of a pressure boosting device.1
Second, Appellants argue that turning off Luscher’s exhaust pump
would change Luscher’s principle of operation because Luscher would cease
to be a suction driven system. App. Br. 10. For the reasons discussed in
connection with Appellants first argument, we determine that the
Examiner’s finding that Luscher does not require the use of an exhaust pump
is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Thus, Luscher is not
necessarily a system driven by the suction provided by an exhaust pump.
Turning off or omitting the exhaust pump(s) that Luscher describes as
optional would not necessarily require a change in Luscher’s principle of
operation.
We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 of the ’029
application.
Conclusion
Because we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 and
Appellants have not argued separately for the patentability of any other

1 Indeed, we note that Luscher specifically describes the use of a fluid spray
from angled orifices to support a substrate without the use of an exhaust
pump. See Luscher ¶¶ [0066]-[0069]. Because the Examiner adequately
addressed Appellants’ arguments, we need not rely upon this particular
description to sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
Appeal 2011-009156
Application 10/982,029

6
claim, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9-12, 14, and 15 of the
’029 application.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

tc