Ex Parte Hardikar et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 16, 2012

11506373 (B.P.A.I. May. 16, 2012)

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.
11/506,373 08/17/2006 Vishwas Hardikar NVLS003141 7753
91286 7590 05/16/2012
Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C.
P.O. Box 828
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303
EXAMINER
KO, JASON Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1711
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/16/2012 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 VISHWAS HARDIKAR, KEVIN BERTSCH and
MIGDAD SELIMOVIC
____________

Appeal 2010-010604
Application 11/506,373
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN and
GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims 1-11
directed to an apparatus for simultaneously rinsing and drying the front and
back surfaces of a workpiece, such as a semiconductor wafer. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2010-010604
Application 11/506,373

2
THE INVENTION
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. An apparatus for simultaneously rinsing and drying front and back
surfaces of a workpiece, the apparatus comprising:

a chuck adapted to spin the workpiece;

a plurality of posts coupled to the chuck and adapted to support
the workpiece;

a first mechanical arm adapted to be positioned between the
chuck and the workpiece, and to sweep along an arc between
the workpiece center and the outer edge of the workpiece back
surface, the first mechanical arm comprising:

at least a first rinsing liquid nozzle, and

a first tensioactive vapor nozzle; and

a second mechanical arm adapted to be positioned adjacent to
the workpiece front surface, and to sweep along at least part of
the workpiece front surface, the second mechanical arm
comprising:

at least a second rinsing liquid nozzle, and

a second tensioactive vapor nozzle.

THE PRIOR ART
The Examiner relies upon the following references in the rejection
(Ans. 3):1

1 Our analysis makes reference to the Examiner’s Answer mailed May 18,
2010 (“Ans.”), the Appeal Brief filed May 5, 2010 (“App. Br.”), and the
Reply Brief filed July 15, 2010 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2010-010604
Application 11/506,373

3
Hosack US 6,928,751 B2 Aug. 16, 2005
Sato2 JP 11-031643 A Feb. 2, 1999

THE REJECTION
Claims 1-11 are pending in the application. Claims 12-20 were
cancelled in response to a restriction requirement. App. Br. 4. Claims 1-11
were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hosack.
Final Office Action entered January 4, 2010. After the Appellants filed the
Appeal Brief, the Examiner in the Answer withdrew the final rejection and
entered a new ground of rejection under § 103(a) over Hosack in view of
Sato, which is the subject of this appeal. Ans. 3. The Appellants responded
to the new ground of rejection in the Reply Brief.
Claims 1-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Hosack in view of Sato. Id. Claim 1 is the only independent claim at issue.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that the drying assembly 120 having mechanical
support arm 130 in Hosack corresponds to the “second mechanical arm” of
claim 1 for treating the front surface of a workpiece. Claim 1; Ans. 4, 7.
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify arm
170 and liquid nozzle 171 in Hosack to include a “first mechanical arm”
according to claim 1 for treating the back surface of a workpiece. Claim 1;
Ans. 4-5, 7-8. In Hosack, each of the components 170 and 171 is stationary
and the drying assembly 120 includes support arm 130 “that is radially
moveable with respect to the substrate.” Ans. 7.

2 We refer to the machine-generated English translation of Sato that is of
record.
Appeal 2010-010604
Application 11/506,373

4
The Appellants contend that the first mechanical arm of the modified
apparatus of Hosack is not “adapted to . . . sweep along an arc between the
workpiece center and the outer edge of the workpiece back surface” as
required by claim 1. Reply Br. 4; Claim 1. The Appellants contend that this
limitation requires a mobile mechanical arm that is adapted to pivot so that
the sweeping end of the arm defines an arc that traverses from the center to
the outer edge of the workpiece. Reply Br. 5.
The Examiner disagrees on the grounds that claim 1 does not contain
language that requires the arm “to be mobile” or “able to sweep about the
workpiece center.” Ans. 8. In the Examiner’s view, the relevant limitation
of claim 1 is satisfied “if the sweeping end [of the arm] lies anywhere
between the center and the outer edge of the workpiece.” Id. The Examiner
thus finds that the stationary mechanical arm of the modified apparatus of
Hosack “is ‘adapted to sweep along an arc’ because it is arranged so that as
the workpiece rotates it [the arm] would pass an arc” along a point that lies
somewhere between the center and outer edge of the workpiece. Id.
We agree with the Appellants that the broadest reasonable
construction of claim 1 is not broad enough to cover the stationary arm of
the modified apparatus of Hosack. The written description in the
Specification discloses that, “[d]uring the cleaning operation, each of the
first and second arms 24 and 28 begins in the position depicted in FIG. 8
with the center wetting nozzle 32 spraying toward the workpiece center, and
then moves in an arc traversing the workpiece radius along the pathway
represented by the arrow” in the figure. Spec. ¶ 0031; see Fig. 8. The
written description thus excludes a stationary arm that simply “lies anywhere
between the center and the outer edge of the workpiece.” Ans. 8.
Appeal 2010-010604
Application 11/506,373

5
The written description further discloses that “the sweeping motions
for both of the arms 24 and 28 are controlled independently with respect to
the rotation of the chuck and the platen 15 mounted thereon in order to . . .
independently optimize the rate at which the workpiece is rotated.” Spec. ¶
0030. The written description thus makes abundantly clear that the first
mechanical arm performs a sweeping motion that is independent and distinct
from the rotation of the workpiece. Id.
The Examiner relies upon Sato solely “as evidence to show the
desirability of washing and drying both surfaces of a substrate.” Ans. 3. We
agree with the Appellants that “a combination of Hosack and Sato does not
comprise every element of independent claim 1.” Reply Br. 3.
On this record, therefore, the rejection cannot be sustained.

REVERSED

kmm