Ex Parte Camm et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2016

10742575 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
10/742,575 12/19/2003
20995 7590 10/04/2016
KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP
2040 MAIN STREET
FOURTEENTH FLOOR
IRVINE, CA 92614
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David Malcolm Camm
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.
FETHE26.001AUS 4058
EXAMINER
SULLIVAN, DEBRA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3725
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2016 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):
j ayna.cartee@knobbe.com
efiling@knobbe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID MALCOLM CAMM, GUILLAUME SEMPERE,
LWBOMIR KALUDJERCIC, GREGORY STUART,
MLADEN BUMBULOVIC, TIM TRAN, SERGIY DETS,
TONY KOMASA, MARC RUDOLPH, and JOSEPH CIBERE
Appeal2012-004213
Application 10/742,575
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
David Malcolm Camm et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-9, 11-20, 24, 75-81,
85,92-102, 129-150, 152-161, 165,212-218,222,229-239,265-284,
303, 304, 309, 310, and 317-322. Br. 7. Claims 10, 21-23, 25-74, 82-84,
86-91, 103-127, 151, 162-164, 166-211,219-221,223-228,240-263,
285-302, 305-308, and 311-315 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Appeal2012-004213
Application 10/742,575
Id. Claims 128, 264, 316, and 323-326 have been cancelled. Id. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to a method and apparatuses for
supporting and heat-treating a workpiece. Spec. 1: 12-13; Figs. 1, 3. Claims
1, 142, and 275 are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
1. An apparatus for supporting a semiconductor
workpiece, the apparatus comprising:
a heating system configured to cause thermally-
induced motion of the semiconductor workpiece by
heating a surface of the workpiece relative to a bulk of the
workpiece; and
a support system configured to allow the thermally-
induced motion of the workpiece while supporting the
workpiece.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-9, 12-20, 24, 129-150, 153-161, 165, 265-284, 303, 304,
and 317-322 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Camm (US 2002/0102098 Al, pub. Aug. 1, 2002) and Patadia (US
6,146,504, iss. Nov. 14, 2000).
Claims 11, 75-81, 85, 92-102, 152, 212-218, 222, 229-239, 309, and
310 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Camm,
Patadia, and Woodruff (US 6,645,356 Bl, iss. Nov. 11, 2003).
2
Appeal2012-004213
Application 10/742,575
ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Camm and Patadia
Claims 1, 6, 20, 129-131, 136--142, 147, 161, 265-267, and 272-274
Appellants state: "Independent claim 1, independent claim 142 and
their dependent claims 6, 20, 129-131, 136-141, 147, 161, 265-267 and 272-
274 stand or fall together." Br. 42; see also id. at 43, 70-71. Accordingly,
we select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claims
6, 20, 129-131, 136-142, 147, 161, 265-267, and 272-274 stand or fall with
claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Camm discloses the limitations of claim 1
substantially as claimed "except for wherein the support system is
configured to allow the thermally induced motion of the work piece while
supporting the work piece." Final Act. 2 (citing Cam, Fig. 6); see also Ans.
4--5. The Examiner finds that Patadia discloses "providing a support system
that minimizes damage to a workpiece while supporting the workpiece and
further teaches that the support pins of the support system are free [to] move
with the workpiece which thereby allows the support pins to move with the
workpiece during thermally induced movement of the workpiece." Ans. 5
(citing Patadia, 6:52---61); see also Final Act. 2. The Examiner further finds
that Patadia discloses an alternative support system that minimizes damage
to the workpiece and Camm suggests that "other support systems may be
used." Ans. 5. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to substitute the support system of Camm with the support
system of Patadia in order to obtain the predictable result of
minimizing damage to the workpiece while supporting the
workpiece. [The Examiner further notes] that the support system
of Patadia has the added benefit of allowing thermally induced
movement of the workpiece and therefore the substitution of the
3
Appeal2012-004213
Application 10/742,575
support system of Camm with the support system of Patadia
would not only minimize damage to the workpiece but would
also allow thermally induced movement of the workpiece, which
is created by the heating device of Camm, while supporting the
workpiece.
Ans. 5; see also Final Act. 2.
Appellants contend:
Patadia ... fails to disclose "a support system configured to allow
the thermally induced motion of the workpiece while supporting
the workpiece," as recited in claim 1, wherein "the thermally
induced motion" has been previously defined in claim 1 as
having been caused "by heating a surface of the workpiece
relative to a bulk of the workpiece". In this regard, it appears that
the only type of relative movement between the substrate and the
support system which can be accommodated by the Patadia
support system is lateral movement [as opposed to vertical
movement], as the Patadia support system is only configured to
allow "lateral movement of the support pin 148 in the recess
146."
Br. 67 (citing Patadia, 4:7-10, 6:31-35, 48-58); see also id. at 53, 57, 64--
66, 68; id. at 49 ("the term 'thermally induced motion' in the context of
Patadia can only refer to lateral/horizontal thermal expansion of the substrate
due to the slow, essentially isothermal heating of the substrate that would
result from the deposition of material onto the substrate."). Appellants
further contend that "[r]ather than moving, the support pins of Patadia will
exert a reactionary force against the workpiece, potentially damaging the
workpiece and the pins and potentially launching the workpiece vertically
upward." Br. 68.
At the outset, Appellants' arguments are not persuasive because they
amount to unsupported attorney argument, and thus are entitled to little, if
4
Appeal2012-004213
Application 10/742,575
any, weight. See Jn re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d at 705 (arguments and
conclusions unsupported by factual evidence carry no evidentiary weight).
Here, as correctly pointed out by the Examiner, "Camm discloses ... a
heating system that causes thermally induced movement of the workpiece
and a support system that minimizes damage to the workpiece while
supporting the workpiece but is silent to the support system allowing
thermally induced movement of the workpiece." Ans. 22. Nonetheless,
Camm "suggest[s] that other alternative support system[s] may be used in
place of the support system disclosed." Id. at 19 (citing Cam, para. 114).
The Examiner relies on Patadia for disclosing "a support system that
minimizes damage to a workpiece while supporting the workpiece and
further teaches that the support pins of the support system are free [to] move
with the workpiece which thereby allows the support pins to move with the
workpiece during thermally induced movement of the workpiece." Id. at 21;
see also id. at 20 (citing Patadia, 6:52-61). The Examiner properly
concludes that "based on the teaching of Patadia of an alternative support
system that minimizes damage to the workpiece and the suggestion of
Camm that other support systems may be used," it would have been obvious
to a person of ordinary skill in the art "to substitute the support system of
Camm with the support system of Patadia in order to obtain the predictable
result of minimizing damage to the workpiece while supporting the
workpiece." Id. at 22.
The Examiner is correct in that Patadia' s support system "has the
added benefit of allowing thermally induced movement of the workpiece"
and "the substitution of the support system of Camm with the support
system of Patadia would not only minimize damage to the workpiece but
5
Appeal2012-004213
Application 10/742,575
would also allow thermally induced movement of the workpiece, which is
created by the heating device of Camm, while supporting the workpiece."
Ans. 22.
The Examiner's findings and conclusions are based on rational
underpinnings. Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner error. Moreover,
regarding Appellants' argument that "the thermally induced motion of the
workpiece recited in claim 1 is vertical and therefore [the] support system of
Patadia is not free to move vertically," the Examiner properly notes that
"[Appellants are] arguing limitations not found in the claims. Specifically,
[Appellants fail] to give a special definition to the [term] 'thermally induced
motion."' Ans. 22; see also Spec. e.g., 4:28-30, 5: 12-21. Limitations not
appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self,
671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). We agree with the Examiner that under
the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims "thermally induced
motion is construed to be any motion of the workpiece cause[ d] by heating
of the workpiece, and Patadia sets forth that the support system is capable of
moving with the workpiece during thermally induced movement." Ans. 22-
23.
Appellants further contend that, "[ t ]he conductive support member
and support pins of Patadia, though suitable for physical vapor deposition
processes, are not suitable for rapid thermal annealing processes for dopant
activation as disclosed in Camm. Rather, the conductive support member
and support pins of Patadia would render Camm unsuitable for its intended
purpose." Br. 60; see also id. at 59, 61-64.
At the outset, as cited by Appellants, Patadia discloses that, "[t]he
support pin is preferably a stainless steel pin," but that does not mean that it
6
Appeal2012-004213
Application 10/742,575
cannot be made of other materials. Br. 59, citing Patadia, 6:61---62
(emphasis added). A reference disclosure is not limited only to its preferred
embodiments, but is available for all that it discloses and suggests to one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976).
When materials are all known and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
be aware of the stresses, i.e., temperatures, to which the various parts would
be subjected and capable of selecting materials to accommodate those
stresses, "the selection of suitable materials ... is no more than a matter of
obvious design choice for such a person." In re Hopkins, 342 F.2d 1010,
1015 (CCPA 1965). Further, in response to Appellants' argument, we agree
with the Examiner's statement:
While the melting temperatures range from 1325 to 1530 degree
C for various types of stainless steel, and the maximum service
temperatures ranging from 815 to 1150 degree C for various
stainless steel types, as disclosed in the documents "Melting
Temperature Ranges for Stainless Steels" and "Maximum
Service Temperature in i\~ir for Stainless Steels", Camm
discloses preheating the bulk of the workpiece to an intermediate
temperature in the range of 600 to 1250 degree C and further
heating a surface of the workpiece to a temperature in the range
of 1050 to 1430 degree C. Therefore it is apparent that the lower
portions of the preheating temperature range and the further
heating temperature range of Camm fall outside of the melting
temperature range and maximum service temperature ranges of
stainless steels. Specifically, the preheating temperature range
and a portion of the further heating temperature range ( 1050 to
1324 degree C) is outside of the melting temperature range of
stainless steel and the portions of the preheating temperature
range ( 600-814 degree C) and portions of the further heating
range (1050-1149 degree C) is within the maximum service
temperature, therefore it is possible to use the stainless steel
support pins of the support system taught by Patadia since a
portion of the preheating range and a portion of the further
7
Appeal2012-004213
Application 10/742,575
heating range disclosed by Camm is outside of the melting
temperature range or within the maximum service temperature.
Ans. 20-21. The Examiner's findings and conclusions are based on rational
underpinnings. Accordingly, Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner
error.
Moreover, to the extent that Appellants are arguing that the
references must be capable of bodily incorporation in order to combine
their teachings ("Patadia' s support system is designed for heat dissipation,
i.e. transfer of heat away from the substrate, which is directly contrary to
the pre-heating requirements of the Camm system which requires transfer
of heat into the wafer" (Br. 63; see also id. at 62) and "the arc lamp 62
shown in Figure 2 of Camm would not be able to irradiate and thereby pre-
heat the wafer, because its electromagnetic radiation would be blocked by
Patadia's support member 142" (id. at 63-64)), we note that the test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of a primary reference. In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). "Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art." Id. (citations omitted). In this case, the Examiner relies on
Patadia merely for disclosing "the support system [being] configured to
allow the thermally induced motion of the work piece while supporting the
work piece." See Final Act. 2; see also Ans. 5, 19-22.
Appellants also assert that "[t]he reasons stated by the Examiner fail
to provide any reason to combine Camm with Patadia, as the problems
addressed by Patadia do not arise in Camm." Br. 52 (emphasis omitted). In
particular, Appellants contend that "Camm already discloses supporting the
8
Appeal2012-004213
Application 10/742,575
workpiece 34 on a guard ring 61 instead of on sharp-tipped support pins.
The guard ring 61 would easily support the workpiece during the only type
of thermally induced motion possible in Patadia, and would also prevent
scratching of the workpiece during such motion." Id. at 54; see also id. at
55-56, 61---62, 69.
Appellants' argument is not persuasive because the Examiner relies
on Figure 6 of Camm, not Figure 2, as suggested by Appellants, for the
rejection and proposed modification. See Final Act. 2; see also Ans. 5. 1
Appellants further contend that "[the] specific type of motion recited
in claim 1 and its attendant problems are not discussed in Camm or Patadia,
and are respectfully submitted to have been unknown in the art prior to the
teachings of the present application." Br. 57; see also id. at 56, 58.
According to Appellants, "the problem to be solved does not appear to
have been within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art prior to
the publication of the present application." Id. at 70. Thus, Appellants
conclude that as the problem was unknown to Camm, "Camm itself provides
no apparent reason to modify its disclosed support for any reason." Id. at 57.
We are not persuaded because we are unaware of any requirement that
the references relied upon to reject claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) have the
same objectives as the claimed invention. It is not necessary for the prior art
to serve the same purpose or to have identified the same advantages as that
1 Camm discloses: "FIG. 6 is a schematic side view of a system for heat-
treating a workpiece according to a fourth embodiment of the invention
(shown with a side wall removed)." Camm, para. 96 (emphasis added). We
note that Figure 6 of Camm does not include "guard ring 61." Compare
Camm, Fig. 2 with, Camm, Fig. 6; see also id. at paras. 91, 96.
9
Appeal2012-004213
Application 10/742,575
disclosed in Appellants' Specification in order to support the conclusion that
the claimed subject matter would have been obvious. See In re Linter, 458
F.2d 1013, 1016 (CCPA 1972); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 419 ("[N]either
the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the [Appellants]
controls" in an obviousness analysis.). Appellants' arguments fail to show
why the combination of Camm and Patadia would not be obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, we note that because Patadia discloses
a system that accounts for thermal induced motion, Patadia is aware of
Appellants' problem of supporting a workpiece during heat treatment.
Compare Patadia, 6:52-61 with Spec. 1:12-13.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 1 as unpatentable over Camm and Patadia.
We further sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 6, 20, 129-131, 136-
142, 147, 161, 265-267, and 272-274, which fall with claim 1.
Claims 275, 276, 279, 284, 317, 318
Appellants state: "Independent claim 275 and dependent claims 276,
279, 284, 317 and 318 stand or fall together." Br. 42. Accordingly, we
select claim 275 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claims
276, 279, 284, 317, and 318 stand or fall with claim 275.
Appellants contend that "neither Camm nor Patadia discloses any of
the structures disclosed in the specification and listed in Table 1 ... as
corresponding to these claimed 'means' elements, nor do Camm and
Patadia disclose any equivalents thereof." Br. 73; see also id. at 72.
In response to Appellants' argument, the Examiner correctly finds:
On page 23 [of the Specification], the means for supporting is
defined to be a support member (22) and the means for allowing
is defined to be a movable engagement portion (52) that is
10
Appeal2012-004213
Application 10/742,575
engageable with the workpiece and is moveable to allow the
thermally-induced motion of the workpiece. Patadia discloses
the claimed means for supporting to be the support member ( 148)
engageable with the workpiece and the claimed means for
allowing to be the top portion of support member (148). It is
further noted that the means for supporting and means for
allowing perform the same function of supporting the workpiece
and allowing thermally induced movement of the workpiece
while supporting the workpiece as claimed. Camm discloses the
claimed means for causing thermally induced motion to be arc
lamp (162) and the arc lamp of Camm performs the same
function of causing thermally induced motion of the workpiece
by heating a surface of the workpiece relative to a bulk of the
workpiece .... Therefore not only does Camm and Patadia meet
the structure of the means-plus-function limitations but both the
heating device of Camm and the support device of Patadia
perform the exact same functions as claimed within the means-
plus-function limitations.
Ans. 23-24. The Examiner's findings are based on rational underpinnings.
Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner error.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of dependent claim 275 as unpatentable over Camm and Patadia.
We further sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 276, 279,
284, 317, and 318, which fall with claim 275.
Claims 2--4, 13-15, 143-145, 154-156, and 277
Appellants state: "Claim 143 recites similar limitations. Claims 3--4,
13-15, 144--145, 154--156 and 277 are not being argued separately from
claim 2." Br. 73; see also id. at 42. Accordingly, we select claim 2 as
representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claims 3, 4, 13-15, 143-
145, 154--156, and 277 stand or fall with claim 2.
11
Appeal2012-004213
Application 10/742,575
Appellants contend that "Patadia discloses a fixed support member
142, and discloses a support pin 148 which in its entirety is moveable, but
fails to disclose a support member having a moveable engagement portion."
Br. 74.
In response to Appellants' argument, the Examiner finds:
Patadia discloses the support pin 148 having an engageable
portion (top portion of pin 148 encompassing surface 154) and
the pin as a whole is moveable within recess 146. Therefore,
although the pin is moveable in its entirety this would include the
engageable portion (154) to be moveable as well. It is noted that
the claim does not set forth that only the claimed moveable
engagement portion is to be moveable while the remaining
portion of the member is fixed.
Ans. 24. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Examiner's
findings are reasonably supported. Appellants do not apprise us of
Examiner error.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of dependent claim 2 as unpatentable over Camm and Patadia. We
further sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 3, 4, 13-15,
143-145, 154--156, and 277, which fall with claim 2.
Claims 5, 146, and 278
Appellants state: "Claims 5, 146 and 278 stand or fall together." Br.
42. Accordingly, we select claim 5 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claims 146 and 278 stand or fall with claim 5.
Appellants contend, "Patadia fails to disclose an engagement portion
that is moveable to minimize stress in the workpiece while supporting the
workpiece during the thermally-induced motion, as recited in claim 5." Br.
75.
12
Appeal2012-004213
Application 10/742,575
In response to Appellants' argument, the Examiner notes that
the recitation of claim 5 fails to provide further structure to the
claimed apparatus but rather only further limits the intended
function of the claimed engagement portion. Patadia meets the
claimed structure of the engagement portion and it is further
noted that the engagement portion in Patadia is intended to
minimize damage to the workpiece, therefore by minimizing
damage to the workpiece it is inherent that stresses caused by
damage to the workpiece are avoided as well.
Ans. 25. As discussed above, under the broadest reasonable interpretation,
the Examiner's findings are reasonably supported. Appellants do not apprise
us of Examiner error. Moreover, as Patadia's pin 148 is permitted to move
with the workpiece of Camm during thermally induced movement of the
workpiece, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that
stresses in the workpiece are avoided. An artisan must be presumed to know
something about the art apart from what the references disclose. See In re
Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of dependent claim 5 as unpatentable over Camm and Patadia. We
further sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 146 and 248,
which fall with claim 5.
Claims 7, 148, and 280
Appellants contend:
Patadia fails to disclose or discuss any motion of the center of
mass of the workpiece whatsoever, or any cause thereof. Patadia
is concerned only with vibrations of the system, and possibly
with isothermal lateral expansion of the substrate, neither of
which appears to cause any appreciable motion of the center of
mass of the workpiece.
13
Appeal2012-004213
Application 10/742,575
Br. 76.
In response to Appellants' argument, the Examiner finds:
Claim 7 fails to set forth any additional structure of the claimed
support system and only provides a recitation of the intended use
of the support system. It is noted that a recitation of the intended
use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference
between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to
patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended
use, then it meets the claim. . . . Therefore because the support
system disclosed by Patadia meets the claimed structure it is
capable of minimizing motion of the center of mass of the
workpiece.
Ans. 25 (citing Jn re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 (CCPA 1967) and Jn re Otto,
312 F.2d 937, 939 (CCPA 1963).
At the outset, we note that claim 7 recites "the support system is
configured to minimize motion of the center of mass of the workpiece."
1A .. ppeal Br. 117, Claims App. (emphasis added). The language "configured
to ... " cannot simply be dismissed as intended use; rather, such language
must be construed in light of the underlying disclosure in the specification.
See In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Appellants'
Specification describes that "the resilient downward moveability of the
moveable engagement portions 52 allows downward motion of the outer
regions of the workpiece while maintaining a center of mass of the
workpiece in a desired range, or more particularly, while minimizing motion
of the center of mass of the workpiece." Spec. 29:6-10 (emphasis omitted).
Although the teachings of Camm and Patadia allow for thermally-induced
motion of the workpiece, this does not mean that the system is "configured
to" minimize motion of the center of mass of the workpiece. In this case, the
14
Appeal2012-004213
Application 10/742,575
Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or technical reasoning that the
system of Camm and Patadia is "configured to" minimize motion of the
center of mass.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 7, 148, and 280 as unpatentable
over Camm and Patadia.
Claims 8, 149, and 281
Appellants state: "Claims 8, 149 and 281 stand or fall together." Br.
42. Accordingly, we select claim 8 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claims 149 and 281 stand or fall with claim 8.
Appellants contend that ( 1) "Patadia' s support system, comprising
support pins 148 which are laterally moveable within recesses 146 of a
support member 142, is not capable of supporting a semiconductor
workpiece while allowing thermal bowing of the workpiece as recited in
claim 8"; and (2) "Patadia discloses no capability for the support pins 148 to
move vertically while supporting the substrate." Br. 77-78.
As discussed above, Appellants' arguments regarding Patadia's
support pins 148 and "vertical movement" are not persuasive. Further, in
response to Appellants' argument, the Examiner finds:
Because the support system disclosed by Patadia meets the
claimed structure it is capable of minimizing motion of the center
of mass of the workpiece. The support system of Patadia
discloses support pins that contact workpiece at various locations
and since the support system of Patadia meets the claimed
structure it is capable of supporting the workpiece while allowing
thermal bowing since the extent of the thermal bowing is not set
forth in the claim and the support pins are large enough to still
provide support to a portion of the workpiece at locations where
the bowing is not as severe.
15
Appeal2012-004213
Application 10/742,575
Ans. 26. Moreover, we note that when heating from one side a planar
workpiece, as shown in Figure 6 of Camm, a person of ordinary skill in the
art would readily understand that a thermal gradient forms within the
thickness of the workpiece, and as such, the resulting thermally induced
deformation of the workpiece is "bowing." As such, the Examiner's
findings and conclusions are based on rational underpinnings. Appellants do
not apprise us of Examiner error.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of dependent claim 8 as unpatentable over Camm and Patadia. We
further sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 149 and 281,
which fall with claim 8.
Claims 9, 150, and 282
Appellants state: "Claims 9, 150 and 282 stand or fall together." Br.
42. Accordingly, we select claim 9 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claims 150 and 282 stand or fall with claim 9.
Appellants contend that "Patadia fails to disclose any structure
capable of supporting the workpiece while allowing it to thermally bend."
Br. 78.
In response to Appellants' argument, the Examiner finds:
The support system of [Patadia] supports the workpiece along the
bottom of the workpiece and the top of the workpiece is free from
any structure of the support system, therefore the support system
disclosed by Patadia is capable of supporting the workpiece
while allowing thermal bending since the workpiece can bend
away from one of the support pins but still be supported at the
remaining support pin locations along the bottom of the
workpiece.
16
Appeal2012-004213
Application 10/742,575
Ans. 27. Moreover, as noted above, when heating from one side a planar
workpiece, as shown in Figure 6 of Camm, a person of ordinary skill in the
art would readily understand that a thermal gradient forms within the
thickness of the workpiece, and as such, the resulting thermally induced
deformation of the workpiece is "thermal bending." As such, the
Examiner's findings and conclusions are based on rational underpinnings.
Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner error.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of dependent claim 9 as unpatentable over Camm and Patadia. We
further sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 150 and 282,
which fall with claim 9.
Claims 12, 24, 153, and 165
The Examiner "interpret[s] the limitation resiliently to mean maintain
its original shape." Ans. 27. As such, the Examiner finds "the support pins
of Patadia are constructed of stainless steel and maintain their original shape
while in engagement with the substrate." Id.
Appellants contend:
The support pins 148 of Patadia are not resiliently engageable
with the substrate. The support pins 148 appear to be rigid rather
than flexible, and are not equipped with any springs or other
structure that could cause them to be resiliently engageable with
the substrate. The support pins of Patadia will not remain in
engagement with the workpiece if the workpiece undergoes
vertical motion, such as the motion caused by heating a surface
of the workpiece relative to a bulk of the workpiece as recited in
Claim 1. Therefore, the support pins of Patadia, although
capable of limited lateral movement, are not resiliently
engageable with the workpiece.
Br. 79.
17
Appeal2012-004213
Application 10/742,575
An ordinary and customary meaning of the term "resilient" is
"returning to the original form or position after being bent, compressed, or
stretched. "2 Such an interpretation is consistent with Appellants'
Specification, which describes that the engaged movable portion "move[ s]
downward ... and resiliently rise[s] back." See Spec. 6:5---6. As such, the
Examiner's interpretation of the term "resilient" to mean "maintain its
original shape" is not consistent with Appellants' Specification. Therefore,
because Patadia's support pins 148 maintain their shape, Patadia's pins are
not capable of returning to their shape after being bent, compressed or
stretched, and thus, are not "resilient."
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 12, 24, 153, and 165 as
unpatentable over Camm and Patadia.
Claims 16-19, 157-160, and 283
Appellants state: "Claims 16-19, 157-160 and 283 stand or fall
together." Br. 42. Accordingly, we select claim 16 as representative. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claims 17-19, 157-160, and 283 stand or fall
with claim 16.
Appellants contend that "Patadia does not disclose a support system
configured to suppress vibration of the workpiece. Rather, Patadia discloses
that the lateral mobility of the support pins 148 may dissipate vibrations of
the processing system." Br. 80; see id. at 81.
In response to Appellants' argument, the Examiner finds:
Patadia discloses in column 6 lines 56---60 that the support pins
have the flexibility to move and this flexibility dissipates the
2 See http://www.dictionary.com/browse/resilient (last visited Sept. 29, 2016).
18
Appeal2012-004213
Application 10/742,575
vibrations that the support member may experience. Because the
support pins have the flexibility to move and thereby dissipate
vibrations the workpiece in return will not experience vibrations,
therefore the support system of Patadia suppress[ es] any
vibration of the workpiece since the support pins dissipate[]
vibrations occurring from the processing system.
Ans. 28. The Examiner's findings are based on rational underpinnings.
Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner error.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of dependent claim 16 as unpatentable over Camm and Patadia.
We further sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 17-19,
157-160, and 283, which fall with claim 16.
Claims 132-134, 268-270, and 319
Claim 132 recites "irradiate the surface of the workpiece for a first
time period less than the thermal conduction time of the workpiece" and
"irradiate the surface for a second time period less than the thermal
conduction time of the workpiece." Appeal Br. 131, Claims App. Claims
268 and 319 recite similar limitations. Appeal Br. 148, 154--155, Claims
App. The Examiner relies on Camm for these limitations but fails to direct
us to any discussion in Camm of irradiating the surface of the workpiece for
a first and a second time period less than the thermal conduction time of the
workpiece. See Final Act. 5, 9, 12-13. Additionally, the Examiner does not
address Appellants' contentions in the Answer. See Ans. 28; Br. 83.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 13 2, 268, and 319 as unpatentable
over Camm and Patadia. We further do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
19
Appeal2012-004213
Application 10/742,575
of claims 133 and 134, which depend from claim 132, and claims 269 and
270, which depend from claim 268.
Claims 135, 271, and 320
Claim 13 5 recites "wherein the irradiance system is configured to
continuously irradiate the surface of the workpiece for an interval
shorter than a thermal conduction time of the workpiece and sufficiently
long to allow at least some thermal bowing of the workpiece." Appeal Br.
132, Claims App. Claims 271and320 recite similar claim language.
Appeal Br. 149, 155, Claims App. The Examiner relies on Camm for these
limitations but fails to direct us to any discussion in Camm of these
limitations. See Final Act. 5, 10, 13. Additionally, the Examiner does not
address Appellants' contentions in the Answer. See Ans. 28; Br. 87.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 135, 271, and 320 as unpatentable
over Camm and Patadia.
Claims 303 and 304
The Examiner "interpret[ s] the limitation flexible to mean[] that it
permits movement and is not fixed." Ans. 16. The Examiner finds that
Patadia "teaches the means for supporting comprise flexible means for
supporting." Id.
Appellants contend "the short, thick, stainless steel support pins 148
of Patadia, although laterally moveable within their recesses 146, are not
bendable or pliable and are therefore not 'flexible'. Therefore, Patadia fails
to disclose, 'flexible means for supporting' as recited in claim 303." Br. 91;
see also id. at 88-90.
20
Appeal2012-004213
Application 10/742,575
An ordinary and customary meaning of the term "flexible" is
"capable of being bent, usually without breaking; easily bent. "3 Although
Appellants' Specification does not explicitly define or limit the term
"flexible," it does describe that "flexible support members may include a
plurality of fibers, ... For example, the flexible support members may
include optical fibers such as quartz fibers or sapphire fibers." Spec. 11 :5-8.
Upon review of Appellants' Specification, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner's interpretation of the term "flexible" is not consistent with
Appellants' Specification and thus, the interpretation is not reasonable. See
Br. 88-91. Therefore, because Patadia's support pins 148 are not capable of
being bent, Patadia's pins do not constitute "flexible means," as called for by
claim 3 0 3 .
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 303 as unpatentable over Camm
and Patadia. We further do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim
304, which depends from claim 303.
Claims 321 and 322
Claim 321 recites "wherein the means for continuously irradiating
comprises means for varying an intensity of irradiance during the interval."
Appeal Br. 155, Claims App. Claim 322 depends from claim 321. Id. The
Examiner relies on Camm for the limitations of claims 321 and 322 but fails
to direct us to any discussion in Camm of these limitations. See Final Act.
13. Additionally, the Examiner does not address Appellants' contentions in
the Answer. See Ans. 28; Br. 93-94.
3 See http://www.dictionary.com/browse/flexible (last visited Sept. 29, 2016).
21
Appeal2012-004213
Application 10/742,575
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 321 and 322 as unpatentable over
Camm and Patadia.
Obviousness over Camm, Patadia, and Woodruff
Claims 11, 75-81, 85, 92-102, 152, 212-218, 222, 229-239, 309, and 310
The Examiner finds that "[t]he combination of [Camm] and [Patadia]
discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the
support member has a constrained and unconstrained portion." Final Act.
13. The Examiner finds that Woodruff discloses "a support system (85)
comprising of a plurality of flexible support members (90) that has a
constrained portion (135, 145) and an unconstrained portion (150)" "for the
purpose supporting the semiconductor and also wipe against the surface of
the semiconductor to remove any particles from the surface of the
semiconductor." Id. at 13-14 (citing Woodruff, 10:7-8). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the flexible support
members of Camm and Patadia with the flexible support members as taught
by Woodruff "to provide a flexible support and remove particles and debris
from a surface of the semiconductor." Id. at 14.
Appellants contend that the Examiner fails to provide reasons with
rational underpinnings to modify Camm and Patadia with Woodruff. Br.
99-104. In particular, Appellants contend that "the structures 85 and 90 [of
W oodruffJ that the Examiner has alleged to constitute a support system and
flexible support members are not in fact supports and do not support the
wafer at all" in contrast, "these are merely an electrical contact assembly 85
comprising flexure contacts 90, which provide electrical contact to the wafer
but do not support it." Br. 99-100. Appellants further contend:
22
Appeal2012-004213
Application 10/742,575
The second reason stated by the Examiner for modifying Camm
to include the flexure contacts 90 of Woodruff, namely, to
"remove particles and debris from a surface of a semiconductor",
also would not arise in Camm. The reason for such removal in
Woodruff is to provide a better electrical connection between the
flexure contacts and the wafer. However, Camm is not an
electroplating apparatus and does not require any electrical
connection to the wafer. Moreover, [Appellants] respectfully
submit that it is well-known in the art that rapid thermal
annealing as disclosed by Camm is a "clean room" process, for
which the wafer would have been cleaned prior to processing.
Therefore, the oxides or other "particles and debris" alluded to
by the Examiner would not be present on the wafer in the Camm
system.
Id. at 104.
We acknowledge the Examiner's position that Woodruff discloses at
column 10 lines 2-3 that "the wafer is brought into engagement with the
contact portions 150." Ans. 29. However, mere contact between "contact
assembly 85 and contact portion 150 of flexure 90" does not necessarily
mean that contact assembly 85 and contact portion 150 of flexure 90 support
wafer 25 of Woodruff. See id.; see also Br. 99, 102-104. Additionally, the
Examiner does not address Appellants' contention that "rapid thermal
annealing as disclosed by Camm is a 'clean room' process, for which the
wafer would have been cleaned prior to processing. Therefore, the oxides or
other 'particles and debris' alluded to by the Examiner would not be present
on the wafer in the Camm system." Ans. 29; see also Br. 104. As such, the
Examiner fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the
combined teachings of Camm, Patadia, and Woodruff disclose the support
member as claimed.
23
Appeal2012-004213
Application 10/742,575
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 11, 75-81, 85, 92-102, 152, 212-
218, 222, 229-239, 309, and 310 as unpatentable over Camm, Patadia, and
Woodruff.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1---6, 8, 9,
13-20, 129-131, 136-147, 149, 150, 154--161,265-267,272-279,281-284,
317, and 318 as unpatentable over Camm and Patadia.
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 7, 12, 24,
132-135, 148, 153, 165, 268-271, 280, 303, 304, and 319-322 as
unpatentable over Camm and Patadia.
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 11, 75-
81, 85, 92-102, 152, 212-218, 222, 229-239, 309, and 310 as unpatentable
over Camm, Patadia, and Woodruff.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
24