Ex Parte Flitsch

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2018

11980850 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
11/980,850 10/31/2007 Frederick A. Flitsch
142389 7590 09/25/2018
Rogers Towers PA
Attention - J.P. Kincart
1301 Riverplace Boulevard
Suite 1500
Jacksonville, FL 32207
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
FFII0001DIV1 7377
EXAMINER
PROBST, SAMANTHA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3743
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2018 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):
jkincart@rtlaw.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
IPDocket@rtlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FREDERICK A. FLITSCH
Appeal2017-006754
Application 11/980,850 1
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1 and 27--43. Claims 2-26 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Futrlab, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal2017-006754
Application 11/980,850
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A fab comprising:
a job, wherein the job comprises one or more substrates;
an automation system of the fab, wherein the automation
system moves the job within the fab;
a fab utilities system, wherein the fab utilities system
comprises one or more of electricity, chemicals and gasses;
a primary cleanspace bounded in part by a first vertical
wall and a second vertical wall, wherein said primary cleanspace
is located between the first vertical wall and the second vertical;
an air source for providing air flow through the primary
cleanspace;
a first processing tool, wherein the first processing tool
comprises a first tool body, a first tool port which receives the
job, connections to the fab utilities, and one or more internal
processing chambers, wherein when the first processing tool port
receives the job the first processing tool is located at the
periphery of the primary cleanspace;
a second processing tool; wherein the second processing
tool comprises a second tool body, a second tool port which
receives the job, connections to the fab utilities, and one or more
internal processing chambers, wherein when the second
processing tool port receives the job the second processing tool
is located at the periphery of the primary cleanspace; and
wherein the job is transported within the primary
cleanspace between at least the first processing tool on a first
level of processing tools and the second processing tool on a
second level of processing tools, wherein the first level of
processing tools is oriented vertically below the second level of
processing tools.
2
Appeal2017-006754
Application 11/980,850
THE REJECTION
Claims 1 and 27--43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable in view of Konishi et al. (US 6,382,895 Bl; May 7, 2002) and
Masada et al. (US 6,267,131 B 1; July 31, 2001 ).
ANALYSIS
Appellant's arguments begin with the premise that Konishi does not
disclose a "fab." Appeal Br. 20 ("nothing in K[inoshi] discloses a fab"), 21
("since it has been established that K[inoshi] does not discuss fabs, it also
does not discuss fab utilities systems"), 22 ("since K[inoshi] describes a
single processing tool with multiple chambers, it cannot contain a primary
cleanspace whose function is transport of jobs between processing tools");
Reply Br. 2-5. According to Appellant, instead of disclosing a fab, Konishi
relates to "processing systems, which are included into 'the fab' and
themselves recited" in claim 1. Appeal Br. 20; accord Appeal Br. 22
(arguing Konishi "describes a single processing tool with multiple
chambers"). Further, Appellant argues "[i]t is exceptionally relevant and
crucially important that the meaning of a 'fab' as known in the art and as
explicitly set forth in the specification is not confused or confounded with
the meaning of a processing tool." Appeal Br. 22.
Claim 1, and Appellant's Specification, broadly define "fab." A
glossary section in Appellant's Specification states "Fab (or fabricator): An
entity made up of tools, facilities and a cleanspace that is used to process
substrates." Spec. ,r 366. More plainly, the Appeal Brief states that "'fab' is
a term for a manufacturing facility." Appeal Br. 5 ( citing Spec. ,r 366); see
also Reply Br. 5 ("the subject matter of the instant application is for
3
Appeal2017-006754
Application 11/980,850
fabricators or fabs which are collections of processing tools [ and] should not
be confused with a stand-alone processing tool").
Notwithstanding the difference between a "fab" and a processing tool
that resides in a fab, Appellant's arguments that Konishi discloses only a
processing tool and not a "fab" violate the principle that a prior art reference
must be considered for all that it teaches or suggests, not merely the
particular invention it is describing and trying to protect. Belden Inc. v.
Berk-TekLLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 2015); EWP Corp. v.
Reliance Universal, Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As cited by
the Examiner (Final Act. 9 (citing Konishi 1:19-22); Ans. 9-10 (citing
Konishi 3 :27-29)), Konishi describes a facility for manufacturing integrated
circuits. See, e.g., Konishi 1: 19-22 ( describing "the production of [large-
scale integrated circuits]"). Indeed, Appellant's own arguments reflect the
fact that a person of ordinary skill would readily understand that in
describing systems and methods used to manufacture integrated circuits,
Konishi teaches or suggests a "fab" as that term has been defined. See
Appeal Br. 19 (recognizing that Konishi "relates to processing systems,
which are included into 'the fab"'); see also In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660-
661 (CCPA 1977) ("Every patent application and reference relies to some
extent upon knowledge of persons skilled in the art to complement that
disclosed .... The specific limitation need not be disclosed in haec verba in
the reference[, which] ... must be evaluated for all it teaches and is not
limited to its specific embodiments." (internal quotation and citation
omitted)).
We also disagree with Appellant's arguments that Konishi does not
teach or suggest "a job, wherein the job comprises one or more substrates."
4
Appeal2017-006754
Application 11/980,850
Appeal Br. 19; Reply Br. 6. The glossary in Appellant's Specification states
"Job: A collection of substrates or a single substrate that is identified as a
processing unit in a fab. This unit being relevant to transportation from one
processing tool or another." Spec. ,r 372. Konishi, which is titled "Substrate
Processing Apparatus" and describes processing substrates throughout its
disclosure, plainly discloses a "job" comprising one or more substrates, as
claimed and as defined in the Specification. Thus, Appellant's arguments
are not persuasive.
We also disagree with Appellant's arguments that Konishi does not
teach or suggest "an automation system of the fab," as required by claim 1.
Referring again to the glossary, Appellant's Specification states
"Automation: The techniques and equipment used to achieve automatic
operation, control or transportation." Spec. ,r 353. Among other things,
Konishi discloses, for example, that "transfer mechanism 42 is also an
articulated robot equipped with an arm on which a substrate is placed"
(Konishi 11 :54--56) and "auto-loader 41, which automatically transfers
substrates 9 [and], like transfer mechanism 42, is configured from an
articulated robot equipped with an arm" (Konishi 10: 12-16). See Final Act.
2 (citing Konishi's transfer mechanism 42 for the automation system
limitation of claim 1 ). Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Konishi fails
to disclose "an automation system of the fab" as recited.
We also disagree with Appellant's arguments that Konishi does not
teach or suggest a "fab utilities system, wherein the fab utilities system
comprises one or more of electricity, chemicals and gasses." Appeal Br. 21.
As stated in the Specification, "Utilities: A broad term covering the entities
created or used to support fabrication environments or their tooling, but not
5
Appeal2017-006754
Application 11/980,850
the processing tooling or processing space itself. This includes electricity,
gasses, air flows, chemicals ( and other bulk materials) and environmental
controls (e.g., temperature)." Spec. ,r 392. The Examiner finds Konishi
discloses a sputter chamber 12 which includes gasses. Ans. 2-3, 9; see
Konishi 7:58---65 ("gas introduction system (not illustrated) is provided to
introduce a prescribed gas into sputtering chamber 12"). Appellant does not
substantively rebut that finding.
We also disagree with Appellant's arguments that Konishi does not
teach or suggest "a primary cleanspace" as recited in claim 1. See Appeal
Br. 22. The glossary in Appellant's Specification states "Cleanspace,
Primary: A cleanspace whose function, perhaps among other functions, is
the transport of jobs between tools." Spec. ,r 360. Among other things,
Konishi explains that transfer mechanism 42 inside separation chamber 3
removes a substrate from a load lock chamber and transfers it to each
process chamber in a prescribed sequence. Konishi 5: 1-11; see Ans. 10
( citing Konishi 3 :27-29 (stating that a transport mechanism "is normally
used by disposing it in a clean room")). Hence, Appellant is not persuasive
that the Examiner erred in relying on Konishi for teaching this limitation.
We also disagree with Appellant's arguments that Masada is limited
to "methodology that acts in portions of processing tools" (Appeal Br. 24
( emphasis omitted)) and that "nothing in the description of M[ asada] can be
a primary cleanspace" (Appeal Br. 25). Contrary to Appellant's arguments
and as cited by the Examiner (see Ans. 10), Masada refers to air flow within
a chamber such as "a chamber formed for example in a clean room"
(Masada 1: 18-19). Thus, Appellant's contentions are not persuasive.
Finally, Appellant raises a number of arguments for the first time in
6
Appeal2017-006754
Application 11/980,850
the Reply Brief. See, e.g., Reply Br. 13 (arguing Konishi does not disclose
an air source as claimed). Because Appellant has not shown good cause for
failing to raise those arguments in the Appeal Brief, such arguments are
waived. Nonetheless, we note that the Examiner cites Masada for the
limitations relating to an air source (see Ans. 8 (citing Masada 6:46-66)),
and Appellant does not substantively rebut the Examiner's findings
regarding Masada's air source.
Accordingly, having considered the Examiner's rejection in light of
each of Appellant's arguments and the evidence of record, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as the Examiner's rejection of
claims 27--43, for which Appellant relies on the same arguments advanced
for claim 1. See Appeal Br. 25, 27-28.
DECISION
We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 27--43.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7