Ex Parte SEMMELROCK et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2019

14192416 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/192,416 02/27/2014
91286 7590 02/27/2019
Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (Lam)
P.O. Box 828
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christoph SEMMELROCK
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.
3222-lUS 1934
EXAMINER
SHAHINIAN, LEVON J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1711
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2019 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):
sstevens@hdp.com
troymailroom@hdp.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPH SEMMELROCK, and DIETMAR HAMMER
Appeal2018-005729
Application 14/192,416
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY R. SNAY, BRIAND. RANGE, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 We cite to the Specification ("Spec.") filed February 27, 2014; Final Office
Action ("Final Act.") dated July 26, 2017; Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App.
Br.") filed December 27, 2017; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") dated April 6,
2018; and Appellant's Reply Brief ("Reply Br."), filed May 16, 2018.
2 Appellant is Applicant, LAM RESEARCH AG, which is identified in the
Appeal Brief as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-005729
Application 14/192,416
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a device for removing liquid
from a disc-like article, such as a semiconductor wafer. Spec. 1. Claim I-
the sole independent claim on appeal-reads as follows:
1. Device for removing liquid from a surface of a
disc-like article, comprising a spin chuck for holding and
rotating a single disc-like article about an axis of rotation, a
liquid dispenser for dispensing liquid onto the disc-like article,
a first gas dispenser comprising at least one nozzle with at least
one orifice for blowing gas onto the disc-like article, a second
gas dispenser comprising at least one nozzle with at least one
orifice for blowing gas onto the disc-like article, a rotary arm
for moving the liquid dispenser and the second gas dispenser
across the disc-like article along a circular arc so that the
second gas dispenser and the liquid dispenser move to a point in
a peripheral region of the spin chuck, wherein the at least one
nozzle of the second gas dispenser is elongated along a first
horizontal line, said first horizontal line defining an angle a of
5-20° relative to a second horizontal line connecting the center
of the second gas dispenser and the rotation axis of the rotary
arm.
App. Br. 15 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis provided to highlight the key
recitation in dispute).
REJECTION
Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Kraus 3 and Ishibashi. 4
3 US 2010/0206338 Al, published August 19, 2010.
4 US 2011/0289795 Al, published December 1, 2011.
2
Appeal2018-005729
Application 14/192,416
OPINION
Appellant argues the claims as a group, focusing the arguments on
features recited in claim 1. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 2-
15 stand or fall with Claim 1.
Relevant to Appellant's arguments on appeal, the Examiner finds that
Kraus discloses a device that includes each element recited in claim 1,
including an elongated gas curtain nozzle and an arm for moving the nozzle
across the surface of a rotating disc, except that Kraus does not specify the
curtain nozzle extending at a 5-20° angle relative to a line extending from
the center of the curtain nozzle to the rotation axis of a rotary arm. Final act.
6-8. The Examiner finds that Kraus discloses providing the nozzle-moving
arm as a rotary arm (i.e., swivel arm), configured to move the nozzle along
an arc, and that Ishibashi discloses an example of a nozzle-moving swivel
arm in which the arm extends perpendicular to the nozzle-moving direction.
Id. at 8-9. The Examiner further finds that Kraus teaches that the curtain
nozzle may be arranged to extend at an angle of 5° relative to a line that is
perpendicular to the nozzle-moving direction. Id. at 7. The Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to configure Kraus's swivel arm
as shown in Ishibashi, which, according to the Examiner, would have
resulted in the curtain nozzle extending at an angle relative to a line
connecting the center of the curtain nozzles and the rotation axis of the
swivel arm that meets the claimed range of 5-20°. Id. at 9.
Appellant argues that Kraus' s disclosed curtain nozzle angle is
relative to the radius of rotational movement of the disc, and not relative to
the rotational axis of a swivel arm as claimed. App. Br. 9. Particularly,
Appellant argues that Kraus requires that the curtain nozzle is substantially
3
Appeal2018-005729
Application 14/192,416
perpendicular (85 to 95°) to the disc's radius of rotational movement, and
that if a swivel arm is used, a counter-movement must be applied to the
nozzle to maintain that substantially perpendicular orientation. Id. ( citing
Kraus ,r 22). Appellant contends that Kraus' requirement for counter-
movement of the nozzle, and the consequent substantially perpendicular
orientation of the curtain nozzle relative to the disc's radius of rotation,
refute the Examiner's finding that providing Kraus with a nozzle-moving
swivel arm would have resulted in the claimed angle relative to a line
extending from the center of the curtain nozzle to the rotational axis of the
swivel arm. Id. at 10-13.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. For
clarity, we reproduce Kraus's Figures 3 and 9 below:
[Fig. 0009]
Figure 2 is a schematic top view of a nozzle 4 having an elongated curtain
nozzle 6. Kraus ,r 55. Figure 9 is a schematic top view showing the nozzle
4 at different positions during a liquid removing process, including an initial
position over the center of the disc. Id. ,r 50. As shown in Figure 9, Kraus
depicts an angle a between the radius of the disc and the elongation axis of
4
Appeal2018-005729
Application 14/192,416
the curtain nozzles. See id. Fig. 9. Kraus states that the angle a can be 85 to
95°, i.e., plus or minus 5° from perpendicular to the path X of nozzle
movement along the disc's radius. Id. ,r 62.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's finding that Ishibashi
teaches providing a nozzle-moving swivel arm that is perpendicular to the
nozzle-moving direction. See Reply Br. 7 (stating that the angle between the
nozzle-moving direction Dn and a line extending from the nozzle along the
swivel arm in Ishibashi is 90 degrees). Thus, Appellant does not identify
error in the Examiner's determination that it would have been obvious in
light of Ishibashi to configure Kraus' s disclosed swivel arm such that the
swivel arm extends perpendicular to the nozzle moving direction. Given
Kraus' s teaching of an elongation axis of the curtain nozzle that diverges up
to 5° from perpendicular to the nozzle moving direction, a perpendicularly
oriented swivel arm in that instance would appear to result in approximately
a 5° angle between the nozzle's elongation axis and a line that extends from
the nozzle along the swivel arm.
Appellant's argument that Kraus requires a counter-movement to the
nozzle if a swivel arm is provided is well-taken, but not persuasive in light
of the scope of Appellant's claim. Kraus states, "[i]f the slit-shaped nozzle
is mounted on a swivel arm a counter movement of the nozzle has to be
carried out in order to maintain the slit-shaped nozzle in a position
substantially perpendicularly to the radius of the rotational movement.").
Kraus ,r 22. Thus, according to Kraus, the nozzle, and therefore the angle of
the curtain nozzle's elongation axis, necessarily is adjusted to maintain its
original substantially perpendicular orientation relative to the disc's axis,
despite its overall movement along the arc of the swivel arm. However,
5
Appeal2018-005729
Application 14/192,416
Kraus's requirement for such adjustment during travel of the nozzle does not
negate the Examiner's finding with regard to the angle presented as it would
exist prior to movement of the swing arm, when Kraus' s nozzle is centered
above the disc. Appellant does not direct us to language in claim 1 that
requires the claimed angle to be maintained during operation of the device or
movement of the rotary arm.
For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that the Examiner's
findings and obviousness determination are supported by a preponderance of
the evidence. Appellant does not persuade us of reversible error.
Accordingly, the Rejection as applied to claim 1 is sustained.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-15 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
6