Ex Parte FuentesDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 12, 201411603571 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte RICARDO I. FUENTES ________________ Appeal 2013-001982 Application 11/603,571 Technology Center 1700 ________________ Before CHARLES F. WARREN, TERRY J. OWENS, and MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–11, 22, and 23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellants claim a device for holding a substrate during processing of the substrate. Claims 1 and 23 are illustrative: 1. A device for holding a substrate during processing of the substrate, the substrate having a first side and a second side, the device comprising: a plurality of holding components each movable from a respective first predetermined position in which the respective holding component is configured to contact a second side of the substrate without significantly Appeal 2013-001982 Application 11/603,571 2 contacting the first side of the substrate to a respective second predetermined position, wherein the device is configured to selectably actuate at least one of the holding components from its respective first predetermined position to its respective second predetermined position during the processing of the substrate while other holding components remain in contact with the substrate so as to prevent the at least one of the holding components from affecting the processing of the substrate. 23. A device for holding a substrate during processing of the substrate, the substrate having a first side and a second side, the device comprising: a holding component movable from a first predetermined position in which the holding component is configured to contact a second side of the substrate without significantly contacting the first side of the substrate to a second predetermined position, wherein the device is configured to selectably actuate the holding component from its respective first predetermined position to its second predetermined position during the processing of the substrate in order to prevent the holding component from affecting the processing of the substrate. The Reference Shufflebotham US 5,669,977 Sept. 23, 1997 The Rejection Claims 1–11, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Shufflebotham.1 1 A rejection of claims 1–11, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2). Appeal 2013-001982 Application 11/603,571 3 OPINION We reverse the rejection as to claims 1–11 and 22 and affirm it as to claim 23. Claim 23 Shufflebotham discloses lift pins 6, 20 (which correspond to the Appellant’s holding component) which are movable from a first position in which they are configured to contact a second side (lower side) of a substrate (wafer 2), without contacting the first side (upper side), to a second position (lower position out of contact with the substrate (Fig. 1)), and are selectively actuatable from their first position, in which they contact the second side of the substrate, to their second position in which they have been lowered such that they no longer contact the substrate, during the processing of the substrate (i.e., the process of moving the substrate from an entrance load lock (12) to a processing chamber (14), lowering the lift pins such that the substrate is supported by mechanical and/or electrostatic clamping mechanisms and the lift pins no longer contact the substrate, processing the substrate in the processing chamber, raising the lift pins such that they lift the substrate off of its processing chamber support, and moving the substrate from the processing chamber to an exit load lock (16)) (col. 1, ll. 31–50; col. 5, l. 63; Figs. 1–3). While the lift pins are in the second position whereat they have been lowered and are out of contact with the substrate, they do not affect the processing of the substrate. The Appellant argues that in Shufflebotham’s apparatus “only the electrostatic chucking or mechanical clamping arrangement holds the substrate to the substrate holder during processing, whereas the lift pin Appeal 2013-001982 Application 11/603,571 4 arrangement does not even contact the substrate during processing of the substrate” (Reply Br. 4). “‘[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.’” In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). The Appellant’s Specification does not limit the term “processing” such that it excludes the portion of Shufflebotham’s process wherein the substrate is lowered by the lift pins onto the substrate’s support in the processing chamber and the lift pins further are lowered such that they no longer contact the substrate. Thus, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of claim 23. Claims 1–11 and 22 We need address only claim 1, which is the sole independent claim among claims 1–11 and 22. That claim requires a device configured to selectably actuate at least one holding component from a first position in contact with a substrate to a second position during the processing of the substrate while other holding components remain in contact with the substrate. Shufflebotham restores at least one shape memory alloy lift pin from a deformed configuration to a memorized condition by heating the lift pin to a temperature at which the shape memory alloy transforms from the martensitic (deformed) state to the austenitic (restored) state (col. 3, ll. 12– 16; claim 12). Appeal 2013-001982 Application 11/603,571 5 The Examiner argues that “[s]ince Shufflebotham claim 12 teaches ‘restoring at least one of the lift pins’, or moving at least one of the holding components, this at least suggests moving only one of the holding components. This, in turn, suggests modifying the Shufflebotham device such that it can be operated wherein one holding device is moved while others are unmoved” (Ans. 8) and that “the functional language recited in the claim can be performed by the apparatus of Shufflebotham teaching by, e.g., moving the lifter (Fig. 3, ref. 22 and 26) down and away from the substrate (Fig. 3, ref. 36) while heating all but one lifting component, such that the all but one lifting component loses contact with the substrate (as the lifter descends) though the remaining holding components remain in contact with the substrate (due to the heating)” (Ans. 7–8). Shufflebotham discloses that “the lift pin is restorable from a deformed configuration to the memorized configuration by applying heat to the lift pin or operating the equipment at a temperature which exposes the lift pin to a temperature at which the shape memory alloy transforms to the austenitic state” (col. 3, ll. 7–12) and that “the process can include restoring at least one of the lift pins from the deformed configuration to the memorized condition by heating the lift pin to a temperature at which the shape memory alloy transforms from martensitic state to the austenitic state” (col. 3, ll. 12–16). The Examiner, however, has not established that such heating can cause at least one lift pin to move from a first position in contact with the substrate to a second position while other lift pins remain in contact with the substrate. The Examiner has provided mere speculation to that effect, and such speculation is not a sufficient basis for a prima facie case of Appeal 2013-001982 Application 11/603,571 6 obviousness. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967); In re Sporck, 301 F.2d 686, 690 (CCPA 1962). Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 1–11 and 22. DECISION/ORDER The rejection of claims 1–11, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Shufflebotham is reversed as to claims 1–11 and 22 and affirmed as to claim 23. It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part. 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-IN-PART cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation