Ex Parte Gleissner

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 8, 2017

13472860 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 8, 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.
13/472,860 05/16/2012 Andreas GLEISSNER LamV0345US 9349
91286 7590 09/12/2017
Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (Lam)
P.O. Box 828
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303
EXAMINER
LOWE, MICHAEL S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3652
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/12/2017 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):
s stevens @ 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 ANDREAS GLEISSNER
Appeal 2017-001382
Application 13/472,8601
Technology Center 3600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—10, which constitute all pending claims. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Lam Research AG, of Villach,
Austria. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-001382
Application 13/472,860
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to an apparatus for transporting a wafer-shaped
article. Abstract; Figs. 1—4. Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the
subject matter on appeal (emphasis added):
1. An apparatus for transporting a wafer-shaped article,
comprising a holder configured to hold a wafer-shaped article of a
predetermined diameter, a robot arm that is horizontally movable, and
a linkage interconnecting a distal end of said robot arm and said
holder such that said holder and said linkage project laterally from
said distal end of said robot arm, wherein said holder is vertically
movable relative to said distal end of said robot arm via said linkage
from a retracted position to an extended position, and wherein said
distal end of said robot arm remains stationary during movement of
said holder from said retracted position to said extended position.
App. Br. 7 (Claims Appendix).
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1—10 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)2 as
being unpatentable over Yang (US 6,478,531 Bl; iss. Nov. 12, 2002) and
any one or more of Muka (US 6,062,798; iss. May 16, 2000)), Tsubota et al.
(US 6,655,901 B2; iss. Dec. 2, 2003) (“Tsubota”), Koyama et al. (US 7,396,
199 B2; iss. July 8, 2008) (“Koyama”), and Tepolt (US 5,746,565; iss. May
5, 1998). Final Act. 2—4.
Claim 7 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Yang, Kurita et al. (US 2010/0086380 Al; pub. April 8, 2010) (“Kurita”),
and any one or more of Muka, Tsubota, Koyama, and Tepolt. Final Act. 4—
5.
2 The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1—10 is withdrawn. Ans. 2.
2
Appeal 2017-001382
Application 13/472,860
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding the combination of
Yang and the additional cited references (Muka, Tsubota, Koyama, and
Tepolt) teaches the claim 1 limitations and the Examiner provides
insufficient evidence to support modifying Yang to result in the claim 1
limitations. App. Br. 2—5; Reply Br. 2—9.
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding element 120 of Yang as
corresponding to the claimed holder, elements 10, 30 as corresponding to the
claimed robot arm, and elements 50, 70, 90 as corresponding to the claimed
linkage. App. Br. 2 (citing Yang Fig. 2); see Final Act. 2. According to
Appellant, Yang’s element 10 is the base of the article transfer apparatus and
is not disclosed as a distal end of a robot arm. Id. And, elements 30, 50, 70
and 90 are the first through fourth links of a mechanism that moves the Yang
mounting member 120 vertically relative to its base 10. Id.
Appellant further argues the Examiner errs in finding “[i]t is well
known in the art that robot arms may be made movable to increase
versatility of movement and increase transfer reach and linkages are known
to project laterally away from a stationary distal end of a robot arm to
expand lateral reach ability” and argues the cited references do not support
this finding. Id. at 3 (citing Final Act. 3). In particular, Appellant argues
each of the cited references “does not disclose a linkage that, along with a
connected holder, projects laterally away from a distal end of a horizontally
movable robot arm, much less one that is vertically extensible while the
distal end remains stationary.” Id. at 4 (citing Muka Figs. 2, 3; Tsubota
cover figure (Fig. 2), Figs. 8—10; Tepolt elements 52 and 14; Koyama
element 71).
3
Appeal 2017-001382
Application 13/472,860
Appellant then argues:
It is furthermore not apparent how or why a skilled artisan would
have found it obvious to modify the particular structure disclosed
by Yang in view of the particular structure shown in any of the
four secondary references, to say nothing of “any one or more”
of those secondary references, and the final rejection provides no
explanation in this respect.
Id. at 5.
The Examiner finds Yang teaches much of the claim 1 limitations,
including a holder (120), a robot arm (10, 30), and a linkage (50, 70, 90).
Final Act. 2—3 (citing Yang; see Figs. 1—3). The Examiner additionally finds
“[i]t is well known in the art that robot arms may be made movable to
increase versatility of movement and increase transfer reach and linkages are
known to project laterally away from a stationary distal end of a robot arm to
expand lateral reach ability.” Final Act. 3. In support of the additional
finding, the Examiner cites Muka, Figures 2 and 3, Tsubota, Figures 2 and
8—10, Tepolt, items 52 and 14, and Koyama, item 71. Regarding modifying
Yang, the Examiner concludes:
Though not believed needed it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
have modified Yang's robot arm (generally 10, 30) as claimed to
be horizontally moveable in order to achieve the predictable
result of increasing lateral transfer reach and movement
versatility.
Id. at 3.
In the Answer, the Examiner finds:
Appellant argues that there are multiple secondary references.
However as noted in the rejection, they show wafer holders
4
Appeal 2017-001382
Application 13/472,860
moved horizontally & vertically by linkages are well known in
the art as are movable base arms that are stationary relative to the
linkage movements (Koyama figure 3A,B item 71; Tepolt figure
1, etc. as some examples). Each secondary reference shows
variations on the movable linkages and their number show how
common the feature is. Appellant’s arguments are only that they
don’t show the features but is apparent from the figures of each
reference that it is shown & known. Also note the claim
limitations do not give any particular meaning to what appellant
believes a “robot arm” or “lateral” direction to be and they can
be interpreted broadly.
Ans. 5—6.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that none of the cited references
“disclose a robot arm, linkage, and holder as recited in Claim 1.” Reply Br.
2—9. Appellant argues the Examiner provides insufficient evidence to
support modifying Yang to result in the claim 1 limitations. Id. Appellant
also argues the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness because the combined references fail to disclose the claim 1
limitations. Id. at 10.
Appellant presents no persuasive argument that the claim terms
should be limited to exclude the combined teaching of the cited references
and presents no persuasive argument that the Examiner’s findings and claim
interpretations are unreasonable or overbroad. We note the terms “robot
arm” and “lateral” are not defined terms. Claim terms in a patent application
are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Crish,
393 F.3d at 1256.
5
Appeal 2017-001382
Application 13/472,860
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments regarding
obviousness and agree, instead, with the findings and conclusions of the
Examiner. We note Appellant argues the disclosure of the cited references
rather than the teachings of the references. Moreover, Appellant’s argue the
references individually whereas the rejection is based on the combination.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference
may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is
it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of
the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re
Keller, 642 F.2d413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
As stated by the Supreme Court, the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
must be based on:
“[Sjome articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning
to support the legal conclusion of obviousness” .... [Hjowever,
the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.
KSRInt’l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
The Examiner’s findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan
would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of
a puzzle” since the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21.
On this record, Appellant does not present sufficient or persuasive
evidence that the combination of the cited references was “uniquely
6
Appeal 2017-001382
Application 13/472,860
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an
unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price,
Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 419-21).
Nor has Appellant provided objective evidence of secondary considerations,
which our reviewing court guides “operates as a beneficial check on
hindsight.” Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese & Powder Sys., Inc., 725
F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8—10 as these claims
are not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting dependent claim 4,
which recites the “end effector fits through an opening whose vertical
clearance is less than 6 cm.” App. Br. 5. According to Appellant, “one of
the significant benefits of the claimed apparatus is its ability to load wafers
through a relatively narrow slot door on the side of a process chamber, and
then elevate the wafer to its loading position” and “Yang nor any of the
secondary references, nor any proper combination of the same, is capable of
achieving the subject matter.” Id.
The Examiner concludes, and we agree:
Also though not believed needed, it would be obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
have tried modifying Yang to make the link lengths and the
various component dimensions any size to achieve any desired
extensions and relative dimensions desired in order to meet the
needs of a given situation such as maximizing reach while
minimizing space taken up when retracted.
Ans. 4.
7
Appeal 2017-001382
Application 13/472,860
Regarding dependent claim 7, Appellant argues “Kurita does not bring
Yang closer to the subject matter of claim 1, whether or not these references
are considered together with ‘any one or more’ of the other secondary
references, and the dependent claim 7 is therefore allowable at least by
virtue of its dependency.” App. Br. 5—6.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Kurita teaches pneumatic
cylinders and concludes “[i]t would have been obvious to [one] of ordinary
skill in the art to have modified Yang by Kurita as claimed in order to use
any equivalent driving means to limit potential contaminant fluids such as
hydraulic fluid or match the power supply type available, etc.” Final Act. 4—
5; see also Ans. 5—6.
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 4
and 7.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
8