Ex Parte Hwang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 16, 2013

10956389 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2013)

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.
10/956,389 10/01/2004 Chul-Joo Hwang 6534-010 7598
83219 7590 05/16/2013
Renaissance IP Law Group LLP (Portland IP)
9600 SW OAK ST. SUITE 560
PORTLAND, OR 97223
EXAMINER
LOWE, MICHAEL S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3652
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/16/2013 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 CHUL-JOO HWANG AND YONG-JIN KIM
____________

Appeal 2011-003066
Application 10/956,389
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and
NEIL A. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

GROSSMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-003066
Application 10/956,389

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1, 3-18, and 21-26. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 15, 16, and 25 are the independent claims on appeal.
Claims 1, 15, and 25 are apparatus claims. Claim 16 is a method claim.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal, and recites:
1. An apparatus for a liquid crystal display
device, comprising:
a process chamber for treating a substrate,
wherein the process chamber is a deposition
chamber configured to treat the substrate for a
deposition step or an etch chamber configured to
treat the substrate for an etch step;
a load-lock chamber having an interior
conveyor, the interior conveyor including a
plurality of rollers directly on which the substrate
is loaded;
an exterior conveyor adjacent to the load-
lock chamber, the substrate capable of being
transferred from the exterior conveyor to the
interior conveyor in a first direction and from the
interior conveyor to the exterior conveyor in a
second direction opposite to the first direction; and
a transfer chamber connected to the process
chamber and the a load-lock chamber, the transfer
chamber having a substrate-transferring means.

Appeal 2011-003066
Application 10/956,389

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relied upon the following prior art references:

REJECTIONS
Appellants seek review of the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 15, 16, and 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
anticipated by Ozawa;
2. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, 14-18, and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable in view of Miyabe, Blonigan, and Hitoshi or
Ozawa;
3. Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as unpatentable in
view of Miyabe, Blonigan, Hitoshi (or Ozawa), White, and Nakane;
4. Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as unpatentable in
view of Miyabe, Blonigan, Hitoshi, and Ozawa;
5. Claims 6 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
in view of Miyabe, Blonigan, Hitoshi (or Ozawa), and Hallahan;
6. Claims 22 and 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable in view of Miyabe, Blonigan, Hitoshi, and Ozawa, and further
in view of Hallahan or Nakane or Dings; and
Nakane US 4,483,651 Nov. 20, 1984
Miyabe US 4,932,864 Jun. 12, 1990
Hallahan US 5,196,676 Mar. 23, 1993
Dings US 6,288,366 B1 Sep. 11, 2001
Blonigan US 6,471,459 B2 Oct. 29, 2002
White US 6,577,923 B1 Jun. 10, 2003
Ozawa US 7,025,554 B2 Apr. 11, 2006
Hitoshi JP 11-131232 May 18, 1999
Appeal 2011-003066
Application 10/956,389

4
7. Claims 25 and 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable in view of Miyabe, Blonigan, Hitoshi, or Ozawa, and further in
view of Hallahan or Nakane or Dings.
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1
Appellants argue that “the examiner has not met the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case of anticipation as he has not pointed out
where all of the claim limitations appear in a single reference.” App. Br.
10.1
In the Final Rejection, the Examiner stated, without any explanation,
that “Claims 1, 15, 16, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being
clearly anticipated by Ozawa (US 7,025,554).” Fin. Rej. 2.2 In the
Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner stated that “this claim/reference
combination is apparent and not complex. The claims are very broad and
multiple elements of Ozawa read on the limitations.” Ans. 15.3 The
Examiner gave an example of this “apparent and not complex” application
of the reference to the claims in the Answer by stating that Ozawa discloses
“loadlock (42) with interior conveyor (44) having roller joints.” Id. We
disagree with this finding by the Examiner. Ozawa discloses that reference

1 Citations to “App. Br. ___” are to the indicated page in the Appeal Brief
filed July 31, 2010.
2 Citations to “Fin. Rej. ___” are to the indicated page in the Final Rejection
mailed January 28, 2010.
3 Citations to “Ans. ___” are to the indicated page in the Examiner’s Answer
mailed August 31, 2010. The rules governing examination require a specific
explanation of the rejection where “a reference is complex or shows or
describes inventions other than that claimed by the applicant” and/or where
the pertinence of each reference is “not apparent.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.104(c)(2).
Appeal 2011-003066
Application 10/956,389

5
numeral 42 refers to “a process-object transfer stage”, which is further
described as a “shared transfer chamber with its inside set at an atmospheric
pressure level.” Ozawa, col. 4, ll. 57-59. Ozawa discloses that the “first and
second load lock chambers” are shown and described with reference
numerals “18 and 32” ( Ozawa, col. 4, l. 56), not by element 42 as stated by
the Examiner. The Examiner provides no explanation for the finding on
which the rejection is based that element 42 in Ozawa is a “load lock”
chamber. This finding is inconsistent with the Ozawa disclosure.
Ozawa also discloses that reference numeral 44 refers to “a transfer
arm.” Ozawa, col. 4, l. 60. The transfer arm 44 is further described as
having “multi-joint forks” that are “flexible and rotatable.” Id., at ll. 64-66.
The Examiner fails to point to any disclosure in Ozawa disclosing that
transfer arm 44 is “interior” to the load lock chambers 18 and 32, or that
transfer arm 44 includes “a plurality of rollers” as specifically called for in
claims 1, 15, 16, and 25. The Examiner’s characterization of transfer arm 44
as a conveyor having roller joints is inconsistent with the Ozawa disclosure.
The Examiner also fails to point to any disclosure in Ozawa of an
exterior conveyor adjacent the load lock chamber wherein the substrate is
capable of being conveyed in two opposite directions between the exterior
conveyor and the interior conveyor having a plurality of rollers, as called for
in all the claims. These claim limitations also are not apparent from the
Ozawa disclosure.
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d
628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “The identical invention must be shown in as
Appeal 2011-003066
Application 10/956,389

6
complete detail as is contained in the ... claim.” Richardson v. Suzuki Motor
Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be arranged
as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity
of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As explained above, Ozawa fails to disclose each and every element
set forth in claims 1, 15, 16, and 25 in as complete detail as recited in the
claims. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1, 15, 16, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).4
Rejections 2 – 7
Rejections 2-7 listed above reject under 35 U.S.C. § 103 all the claims
pending in this appeal on various combinations of references. All of these
various combinations of references rely on Miyabe, Blonigan, and Hitoshi
and/or Ozawa for the basic apparatus or method steps recited in the
independent claims, claims 1, 15, 16, and 25.
Appellants argue that Miyabe, Blonigan, and Hitoshi and/or Ozawa
fail to disclose or suggest an exterior conveyor adjacent to the load lock
chamber wherein the substrate is capable of being transferred bi-
directionally, e.g. from the exterior conveyor to the interior conveyor having
a plurality of rollers and from the interior conveyor to the exterior conveyor
in an opposite direction, as called for in all the claims. App. Br. 10-11.

4 In the rejection under Section 102, the Examiner also stated that “Likewise
it would have been obvious to reject the other claims at least under 35
U.S.C. 103(a) similar to as done in the following rejections (emphasis
added).” Ans. 4. “Obvious to reject” is not a statutory standard applicable
to the examination of patent claims. Since the Examiner did not apply
Ozawa under Section 103, we need not further address this statement.
Appeal 2011-003066
Application 10/956,389

7
Appellants also argue that there is “insufficient motivation” to combine the
references as proposed by the Examiner. App. Br. 13.
The Examiner found that Miyabe discloses all the elements and
limitations of independent claims 1, 15, 16, and 25 except for disclosure of
“a deposition or etch chamber and treatment of the substrates.” Ans. 5, 8,
13. The Examiner relied on Blonigan for the disclosure of treating
substrates in a deposition or etch chamber/step to modify the characteristics
of the substrate. Id. Additionally, the Examiner found that Hitoshi teaches
transferring the substrate from the load lock chamber to the process chamber
and from the process chamber to the load lock through the transfer chamber
by having only a single inlet/outlet station. Id. The Examiner also found that
Ozawa discloses “using the same load lock and transfer chambers is known
to allow greater versatility and increase overall throughput.” Id. Based on
these findings, the Examiner concluded that the claimed invention would
have been obvious based on the combined cited references. The rationale
for the combination stated by the Examiner was that it would have been
obvious “to have tried modifying Miyabe by the general teaching of
Blonigan and Hitoshi (or Ozawa) as an expedient to treat substrates in a
deposition or etch chamber/step and to reducing cost and complexity by
having only a single inlet/outlet station.” Ans. 5-6, 8-9, 13-14.
We agree with the Appellants that the references as explained and
applied by the Examiner fail to disclose or suggest an exterior conveyor
adjacent to a load lock chamber wherein the substrate is capable of being
conveyed in two opposite directions between the exterior conveyor and the
interior conveyor having a plurality of rollers, as called for in all the claims.
While the Examiner states that Hitoshi teaches having a single inlet/outlet
Appeal 2011-003066
Application 10/956,389

8
station, the Examiner made no finding that any reference disclosed or
suggested an apparatus or method wherein a substrate is capable of being
conveyed in two opposite directions between the exterior conveyor and the
interior conveyor having a plurality of rollers, as called for in all the claims.
All of the rejections 2-7 rely on the basic combination of Miyabe,
Blonigan, and Hitoshi and/or Ozawa. Because these references as applied
by the Examiner do not disclose or suggest the invention claimed in
independent claims, we cannot sustain the rejections. The Examiner has not
relied on any of the additional references applied against the dependent
claims to cure the deficiencies in the basic combination of references applied
against the independent claims.
DECISION
Upon consideration of the record as a whole in light of Appellants’
contentions and the preponderance of relevant evidence, we REVERSE the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3-18, and 21-26.

REVERSED

Klh