Ex Parte Kurita et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 9, 2017

13006865 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 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.
13/006,865 01/14/2011 SHINICHIKURITA 014967/DISPLAY/AHRDWR/DP 5428
44257 7590 06/13/2017
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - Applied Materials
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
EXAMINER
BERRY JR, WILLIE WENDELL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3652
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/13/2017 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):
Pair_Eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHINICHI KURITA, MAKOTO INAGAWA, and
TAKAYUKI MATSUMOTO
Appeal 2016-004666
Application 13/006,865
Technology Center 3600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1—20 under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
The present invention is directed to “a transfer robot having a cooling
plate attached thereto for cooling a substrate during transfer between a
processing chamber and a load lock chamber.” Abstract.
Appeal 2016-004666
Application 13/006,865
Illustrative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A substrate transfer robot, comprising:
an end effector configure [sic] to support a substrate having
a predefined plan area;
an upper assembly coupled to the end effector and
operable to move the end effector linearly;
a lower assembly coupled to the upper assembly and
operable to rotate and vertically move the upper assembly; and
one or more cooling plates attached to the upper assembly
and positioned below the end effector, wherein the one or more
cooling plates are exposed to the end effector, encompasses a
plan area substantially similar to the plan area of the substrate,
and configured to cool the substrate.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—5 and 10-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Kurita (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number
2010/0086380 Al; published April 8, 2010). Final Rejection 2-4.
Claims 6—9 and 14—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kurita. Final Rejection 4—5.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed August 19, 2015), the Reply Brief (filed
February 15, 2016), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed February 4, 2016) and
the Final Rejection (mailed May 22, 2015) for the respective details. We
have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
2
Appeal 2016-004666
Application 13/006,865
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief, except where
noted.
Anticipation rejection of claims 1-5 and 10-13
Appellants contend that independent claims 1 and 10 are not
anticipated by Kurita because Kurita fails to teach “cooling plates are
exposed to the end effector, encompasses a plan area substantially similar to
the plan area of the substrate, and configured to cool the substrate” as recited
in claims 1 and 10. Appeal Brief 7. We do not find Appellants’ arguments
persuasive.
The Examiner finds:
Kurita’s cooling plates encompasses a plan area substantially
similar to the plan area of the substrate because the applicant has
not distinguished in the claimed language any structural
differences between the claimed substrate and that of the prior
art or given any explanation supported by claim language why
Kurita fails to meet this limitation.
Answer 5—6.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings there is no structural
description in the claims that distinguishes the claimed invention plan area
from Kurita’s plan area.1
1 During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its broadest
reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted)
(internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he words of a claim ‘are generally
given their ordinary and customary meaning.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (enbanc) (internal citations omitted).
3
Appeal 2016-004666
Application 13/006,865
Appellants contend Kurita teaches in Figure 3A, “the cooling plates
(platform 208) are exposed to the frame portion 250 and not to the fingers
285 and 290 upon which the substrate is supported.” Appeal Brief 9.
Kurita’s Figure 3A is reproduced below (with annotations for clarity):
285'N Fi'G®
:£zzztzzzzzz?i
ass yyyf
i
•nHhrr?-,
RG4 286
* W 7/yV/77/
231
/
-^77/77
275E 250
5 ........ ..............................
j — ............
3 280-Ns\ 2&0
I \
—X
Fi64
V 208)
' - ’’80...
\
55 229B
130
275A v
247
280 t—. r. . , .
227 A—f------
i C r-......
„ v /v X/J"< K-«( sXx* \ i
x.____ 24*X s' ,X.S V .,XX■c-rxx------kA. \------- 225A
248 4'X. X - X
A-X .. ;) 's *
220A 250
201
220A j< -
—!
— 205
\ / \
215-'
-210 |
FSG 38
| v~203
300
j VACUUM
I PUMP
r
115
I-—240
ViA
tAH
FIG. 3A
Figure 3A discloses, “[t]he upper and lower end effector modules 265, 270
are used to transport a substrate (not shown) within the vacuum enclosure 200.
The substrate is supported on a plurality of support surfaces configured as
fingers 285 and 290 extending from a corresponding wrist 286, 291.” Kurita,
paragraph 37.
Appellants indicate Figure 2, item 130 and paragraph 26 of the
Specification provide support for the claimed position of the cooling plates
being exposed to the end effector. Appeal Brief 5. Appellants’ paragraph
26 is reproduced below:
4
Appeal 2016-004666
Application 13/006,865
In another embodiment, a high emissivity coating, such as
an aluminum vacuum coating, is applied to the upper surface 226
of each of the cooling plates 126. The high emissivity coating
may be directly coated onto the upper surface 226 of each
cooling plate 126, or the coating may be applied by a high
emissivity aluminum foil with a pressure sensitive adhesive on
the surface that contacts the one or more cooling plates 126. The
high emissivity aluminum foil may be applied to the upper
surface 226 of the one or more cooling plates 126 without the
need for surface treatments, such as anodization, painting, or
bead blasting.
Appellants’ Figure 2 is reproduced below (with annotations for clarity):
Figure 2 is a schematic, isometric view of the transfer
robot 125 according to one embodiment of the present invention.
The transfer robot 125 includes a lower assembly 201 coupled to
an upper assembly 202. The lower assembly 201 is operable to
rotate the end effector 130 about a central axis and move
vertically (Z direction) along the central axis.
Specification, paragraph 21.
5
Appeal 2016-004666
Application 13/006,865
Appellants’ Figure 2 teaches the cooling plate is positioned under the
fingers with the substrate in-between the cooling plate and the fingers.
Kurita’s Figure 3 A teaches the cooling plate is positioned under the fingers
with the effector frame portion in-between the cooling plate and the fingers.
There is no support for Appellants’ narrow interpretation that the claimed
cooling plates are exposed to the fingers in a manner that is patentably
distinct from Kurita’s exposed fingers and cooling plate configuration.
Rather, the claim only requires the cooling plates be exposed to the end
effector. We agree with the Examiner’s findings (see Final Rejection 2—3,
Answer 5—6) that the “cooling plates are exposed to the end effector”
limitation, recited in claims 1 and 10, is anticipated by Kurita.
Subsequently, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
independent claims 1 and 10, as well as, dependent claims 2—5 and 11—13
not separately argued. See Appeal Brief 11.
Obviousness rejection of claims 6-9 and 14—20
Appellants contend, “[t]he Examiner offers no additional references
for curing the defects of Kurita. Therefore“independent claims 1 and 10, and
claims 6-9, and 14-17 depending therefrom, are patentable over Kurita’’ as
are claims 18—20. Appeal Brief 11. We do not find Kurita defective and,
therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 6—9
and 14—20.
DECISION
The Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1—5 and 10—13 is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 6—9 and 14—20 is
affirmed.
6
Appeal 2016-004666
Application 13/006,865
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(v).
AFFIRMED
7