Ex Parte Merry et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2014

12196982 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NIR MERRY and JACOB NEWMAN
____________

Appeal 2012-005037
Application 12/196,9821
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–10 and 12–21. Appeal Br. 2.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Applied Materials,
Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claim 11 has been cancelled. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2012-005037
Application 12/196,982

2
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1, 9, and 20 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A wafer buffering system, comprising:
a frame having a vertical shaft disposed therethrough;
two storage platforms, coupled to the frame on opposing
sides of the shaft, each to receive a wafer carrier thereon,
wherein the position of the vertical shaft is fixed relative to
each of the two storage platforms; and
a transfer mechanism coupled to the vertical shaft and
capable of vertical movement therealong and lateral movement
along an x-axis extending in either direction from the frame at
least sufficient to move linearly along the x-axis from one of
the two storage platforms to the other.

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1–3, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 19–21 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Schmutz (US 7,134,825 B1, issued Nov.
14, 2006).
II. Claims 4–8 and 14–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Schmutz and Bonora (US 6,579,052 B1, issued June 17,
2003).

ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Claims 1–3, 9, 10, 12, 13, 19, and 21
Claim 1 recites “two storage platforms, coupled to the frame on
opposing sides of the shaft . . . wherein the position of the vertical shaft is
fixed relative to each of the two storage platforms.” Emphasis added.
Appeal 2012-005037
Application 12/196,982

3
The Examiner found that Schmutz discloses a vertical shaft 32 and
storage platforms 28, 29, “wherein the position of the vertical shaft is fixed
relative to each of the two storage platforms (fixed in vertical and horizontal
direction in fig. 1; also fixed in horizontal direction of fig. 2 when not
actuated in that direction).” Ans. 5.
In contrast, Appellants contend that Schmutz does not disclose the
claim limitation reciting “the position of the vertical shaft is fixed relative to
each of the two storage platforms.” Appeal Br. 5–6; Reply Br. 4–6.
Appellants contend that Schmutz discloses a manipulating device 31
including an upright column 32, which is guided longitudinally in the floor
24 and ceiling 25 by linear guide 33, 34, and that manipulating device 31
can be moved to move storage spaces 28, 29. Appeal Br. 5 (citing col. 2, l.
65 – col. 3, l. 1; Fig. 1); Reply Br. 4. Appellants further contend that upright
column 32 is movable in a longitudinal direction perpendicular to the plane
of Figure 1 by means of linear guide 33, 34 and, accordingly, is not fixed
relative to each of the storage spaces 28, 29. Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 5.
According to Appellants, upright column 32 is not constrained from moving
relative to storage spaces 28, 29, and therefore, is not fixed relative to the
storage spaces. Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 5.
Appellants’ contentions are persuasive. Claim 1 requires that “the
position of the vertical shaft is fixed relative to each of the two storage
platforms.” Emphasis added. We understand Appellants’ contention is that
the claimed vertical shaft’s position is not capable of being moved relative to
the two storage platforms. We note that Appellants’ Specification discloses
that vertical shaft 104 may be rotatable. Spec. ¶ 16. This disclosure is
consistent with Appellants’ position, as rotation of vertical shaft 104 would
Appeal 2012-005037
Application 12/196,982

4
not appear to change its position relative to the storage platforms. We note
that a dictionary definition of “fixed” is “securely placed or fastened:
stationary.” MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY (11th ed.
2003). Appellants’ construction appears to be consistent with this ordinary
meaning of “fixed” in that the position of vertical shaft 104 appears to be
“securely placed” and “stationary” even during its rotation.
We find the Examiner’s construction of “fixed relative to”
unreasonably broad. Claim 1 requires that the position of the vertical shaft
is “fixed relative to” the storage platforms, whereas the position of
Schmutz’s upright column 32 is not fixed relative to storage spaces 28, 29.
Rather, upright column 32 is movable longitudinally by linear guide 33, 34,
thereby allowing manipulating device 31 to be movable in three coordinate
axes. Schmutz, col. 2, l. 63 – col. 3, l. 8. The longitudinal movement of
upright column 32 via linear guide 33, 34 would not be possible if the
position of upright column 32 were actually “fixed” relative to storage
spaces 28, 29. We agree with Appellants that even if upright column 32 is
fixed in the horizontal and vertical directions illustrated in Figure 1 of
Schmutz, the fact that upright column 32 is movable in the longitudinal
direction precludes a finding that upright column 32 is fixed relative to
storage spaces 28, 29, as required by claim 1. Reply Br. 6.
Accordingly, the Examiner did not establish by a preponderance of
the evidence that Schmutz discloses each and every limitation of claim 1,
and thus, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 1, or its
dependent claims 2, 3, and 19.
Claim 9 is directed to an apparatus for processing a semiconductor
wafer comprising, inter alia, “two storage platforms, coupled to the frame
Appeal 2012-005037
Application 12/196,982

5
on opposing sides of the shaft . . . wherein the position of the vertical shaft is
fixed relative to each of the two storage platforms.” Emphasis added.
The Examiner’s findings regarding this recitation in claim 9 are
similar to those discussed above with respect to claim 1. Ans. 5–6, 9. Thus,
we also not sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 9, or its dependent
claims 10, 12, and 13.
Claim 20
Claim 20 is directed to a wafer buffering system comprising, inter
alia, “a plurality of storage platforms each to receive a wafer carrier thereon,
wherein at least one storage platform is disposed on an opposite side of the
shaft and at a same vertical height as one other storage platform, wherein all
of the storage platforms are arranged along a vertical plane.” Emphasis
added.
The Examiner found that Schmutz discloses a plurality of storage
platforms 28, 29 all arranged along a vertical plane. Ans. 7 (citing Fig. 1).
The Examiner stated “Schmutz teaches a 2 x 6 x 1 array of storage platforms
(2 in the horizontal direction of fig. 1, 6 in the vertical direction of fig. 1, 1
in the horizontal direction of fig. 2). Thus, all of Schmutz's storage
platforms are arranged along the vertical plane of fig. 1.” Id. at 10
(emphasis added).
In contrast, Appellants contend that Figures 1 and 2 of Schmutz show
that storage spaces 28, 29 are arranged in a three-dimensional array, which
includes the plane of the page of Figure 1 and extends longitudinally, that is,
perpendicularly to that plane. Appeal Br. 7. Appellants acknowledge that
claim 20 recites the transitional term “comprising,” but contend that the
limitation “all of the storage platforms are arranged along a vertical plane”
Appeal 2012-005037
Application 12/196,982

6
“places a constraint that all of the storage platforms are arranged along a
vertical plane.” Id.
We understand Appellants’ essential contention to be that although
claim 20 recites the transitional term “comprising,” it still requires that all of
the storage platforms of the wafer buffering system be arranged along the
same vertical plane. In support, Appellants cite In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d
1262 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Appeal Br. 7–8. In Skvorecz, the Federal Circuit
determined that a claim reciting the transitional term “comprising” was
incorrectly construed “in holding that some wire legs of the Skvorecz
device, as claimed, need not have an offset, when the claims state that each
wire leg has an offset.” Skvorecz, 580 F.3d at 1267. We find Appellants’
position to be supported by Skvorecz. Appellants’ position is also consistent
with Figure 1 of its application, showing the arrangement of platforms 116,
118. See also Spec. ¶ 19.
We find no error in the Examiner’s finding that all of the storage
spaces 28 shown in Figure 1 of Schmutz “are arranged along a vertical
plane.” However, Schmutz states “Fig. 2 “shows a partially broken away
lateral view according to arrow II of Fig. 1.” Col. 2, ll. 26–27. We agree
with Appellants that all of the storage spaces 29 shown in Figure 2 of
Schmutz are not arranged in the same vertical plane shown in Figure 1.
Rather, Appellants correctly note that Schmutz discloses that “rows and
columns of storage spaces” are provided along “both longitudinal sidewalls
26 and 27 of housing 21.” Reply Br. 6 (citing col. 2, ll. 59–63; Figs. 1, 2).
We agree with Appellants that Schmutz discloses a three-dimensional array
of storage spaces 28 arranged both within the plane of Figure 1 and along
Appeal 2012-005037
Application 12/196,982

7
the longitudinal direction of the device 10 perpendicularly to the plane of
Figure 1. Id. at 7.
Thus, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 20.
Rejection II
Claims 4–8 depend from claim 1, and claims 14–18 depend from
claim 9. The Examiner relied on Bonora for teachings regarding features
recited in claims 4, 7, 8, 14, 17, and 18. Ans. 8. However the Examiner’s
application of Bonora does not cure the deficiencies of the Examiner’s
reliance on Schmutz for the rejection of claims 1 and 9, as discussed above.
Hence, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 4–8 and 14–18.

DECISION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1–10 and 12–21.

REVERSED

mls