Ex Parte Guldi

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 22, 2007

10259743 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 22, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RICHARD L. GULDI
____________

Appeal 2006-2564
Application 10/259,743
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: February 22, 2007
____________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, CHARLES F. WARREN, and
CATHERINE Q. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.

PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 13 through 15 and 17 through 19. Claim 16, the
remaining claim pending in the above-identified application, stands
withdrawn from consideration by the Examiner as being directed to a non-
elected invention. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.

Appeal 2006-2564
Application 10/259,743

I. APPEALED SUBJECT MATTER
The subject matter on appeal is directed to an integrated circuit wafer
cleaning apparatus. See the Specification, 1. Details of the appealed subject
matter are recited in representative claim 13, which is reproduced below:
13. A wafer cleaning apparatus, comprising:

a tank for holding a chemical bath liquid and at least one integrated
circuit wafer to be cleaned by the liquid;

producing means, located within the tank, for producing a physical
action within the liquid to assist in the cleaning of the at least one wafer; and

a programmable controller, coupled to the producing means, and
programmed to control the producing means to activate the physical action
for a selected duration while the at least one integrated circuit wafer is in the
tank and ceasing the physical action while the at least one wafer is still
present in the liquid.

II. PRIOR ART

As evidence of unpatentability of the claimed subject matter, the
Examiner has relied upon the following references:
Aigo US 5,014,727 May 14, 1991
Stadler US 5,451,267 Sep. 19, 1995
Skrovan US 5,849,091 Dec. 15, 1998
Calio US 6,054,062 Apr. 25, 2000

III. REJECTIONS
The Examiner has rejected the claims on appeal as follows:
1) Claims 13 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by the
disclosure of Calio;
2) Claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Calio and Stadler; and
2
Appeal 2006-2564
Application 10/259,743

3) Claims 13, 17, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combined disclosures of Skrovan, Calio, and Aigo.

IV. FACTUAL FINDINGS, ANALYSES, AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Having carefully evaluated the claims, Specification and prior art
references, including the arguments advanced by both the Appellant and the
Examiner in support of their respective positions, we determine that the
Examiner’s §§ 102 and 103 rejections are well founded. Accordingly, we
will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for the factual findings and
conclusions set forth in the Answer. We add following primarily for
emphasis and completeness.

ANTICIPATION
To support anticipation under § 102(e), the prior art reference relied
upon by the Examiner must disclose, either expressly or inherently, each and
every element of a claimed invention. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15
USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prior art reference only needs to
describe something that reads on the claims on appeal. Kalman v. Kimberly-
Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Applying the above principle of law, the Examiner has found
(Answer, 3) that:
Calio teaches an agitating apparatus for processing
semiconductor wafers, which comprises a bath (reads on “a
tank for holding a chemical bath liquid”, as instantly claimed),
the said bath is filled with the processing liquid; a dispersion
plate and a baffle (reads on “producing means, located within
the tank for producing a physical action within the liquid” as
instantly claimed); a timer, connected to a dispersion plate[,]
3
Appeal 2006-2564
Application 10/259,743

through on/off gas supply valve assembly for activating and
automatically turning off the on/off gas supply valve during the
processing cycle, wherein the timer can be set up depending on
process cycle (reads on “a programmable controller coupled to
the producing means to control the producing means to activate
the physical action for a selected duration and ceasing the
physical action”, instantly claimed). (See Abstract, col. 2, lines
5-30; col. 3, lines 51-57; claims 6, 7, 9, 10; Fig. 1 and 2).

The Appellant has not disputed that Calio teaches the claimed tank
(the tank described at page 6 of the Specification) and producing means (the
gas bubbling system described at page 7 of the Specification). (See Br. and
Reply Br. in their entirety). Nor has the Appellant disputed that Calio
teaches the timer coupled to the producing means to activate and
automatically turn off the producing means. Id. The Appellant primarily
argues that Calio does not teach the claimed programmable controller. (Br.
4-6 and Reply Br. 2-3).
The dispositive question is, therefore, whether Calio teaches the
claimed programmable controller.1 On this record, we answer this question
in the affirmative.
As is apparent from pages 7 and 8 of the Specification, the claimed
programmable controller is broadly defined as follows:

1 The Appellant’s argument that Calio is non-analogous art, for example, is
not relevant to whether that reference anticipates the claimed subject matter
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). In re Self, 671 F.2d
1344, 1350, 213 USPQ 1, 7 (CCPA 1982). Moreover, the Appellant’s
reference to functional limitations, without any discussion of their effect on
the structure or arrangement of the claimed apparatus, is meaningless since
the claimed apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art apparatus
based upon structure, not function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44
USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
4
Appeal 2006-2564
Application 10/259,743

As shown in Figure 1, system 10 according to this first
preferred embodiment of the present invention also includes
programmable controller 20, by way of which the physical
action of system 10…is controlled. Programmable controller
20 has a signal output that is coupled to a device within system
10 that is capable of controlling and stopping the physical
action. In this example, a signal output from programmable
controller 20 is coupled to motor control valve 8;
programmable controller 20 thus is capable of opening and
closing motor control valve 8, and thus starting and stopping
the physical action of the nitrogen gas bubble within tank 2,
under either user or program control.
Programmable controller 20 may be implemented by way
of any conventional programmable device, system, or
subsystem, by way of which manufacturing equipment and
processes are controlled. For example, programmable
controller 20 may be realized by way of an embedded
microcontroller within system 10, which responds to user
inputs or programmed sequences that are applied directly to
system 10. Alternatively, programmable controller 20 may be
realized within a larger system computer implemented as a
higher-performance workstation, either standalone or within a
network, that controls multiple processes within the wafer
fabrication factory. The particular realization of programmable
controller 20 thus depends upon the desired extent and access
of such control within the overall factory within which system
10 is implemented. [Emphasis added.]

Given this description, we concur with the Examiner that the timer
taught by Calio reads on the claimed programmable controller. In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).2 As
required by the claimed programmable controller defined by the

2 The Examiner has properly given the broadest reasonable interpretation of
the claimed programmable controller consistent with the Specification.
There is nothing in this record which demonstrates that the Examiner’s
interpretation is unreasonable.
5
Appeal 2006-2564
Application 10/259,743

Specification, Calio’s timer activates and automatically turns off the on/off
gas supply valve of a gas bubbling system.
In any event, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
readily envisaged a microcomputer embedded timer from the timer
performing the functions described in Calio. As explained by
Microcomputer Dictionary and Guide at page 477,3 one of ordinary skill in
the art would have understood a microcomputer “time schedule controller”
as “a specific controller in which the reference input signal (or the set point)
adheres automatically to a predetermined time schedule” as required by the
timer of Calio
Thus, for the reasons set forth in the Answer and above, we determine
that Calio would have rendered the subject matter defined by claims 13 and
17 anticipated within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

OBVIOUSNESS
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a prima facie case of obviousness cannot be
established absent some teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation in the
applied prior art references and/or knowledge generally available to a person
having ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed subject matter. Pro-
Mold & Tool Co. v. Great lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573,
37 USPQ2d 1626, 1629-30 (Fed. Cir. 1996); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v.
Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir.
1984). The knowledge generally available to a person having ordinary skill
in the art includes facts admittedly well known in the art. See In re Nomiya,
509 F.2d 566, 570-71, 184 USPQ 607, 611-12 (CCPA 1975)(The admittedly

3 (Charles J. Sepple et al., 1975) Attached to this decision.
6
Appeal 2006-2564
Application 10/259,743

known prior art in the Appellants’ Specification may be used in determining
the patentability of a claimed invention.); see also In re Davis, 305 F.2d 501,
503, 134 USPQ 256, 258 (CCPA 1962).

Claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as Unpatentable over the
Combined Disclosures of Calio and Stadler
The disclosure of Calio is discussed above. The Examiner has
acknowledged that Calio does not couple an inert gas inlet tube associated
with the producing means to the tank (Answer. 4).
To account for this missing feature, the Examiner has taken official
notice that “[such] configuration of the claimed apparatus is well known in
the art and utilized in order to fix gas distribution means inside the
processing bath (id.)” Moreover, the Examiner has found that Stadler
teaches such an arrangement for the purpose of bubbling gas in a tank (id.).
Based on the above findings, the Examiner has determined that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to couple Calio’s gas
introduction tube associated with the gas dispersion plate to the bath,
motivated by a desire to fix and stabilize the gas dispersion plate (Answer
4-5).
The Appellant has not challenged the Examiner’s official notice or the
Examiner’s finding drawn to Stadler (Br. 5-6 and Reply Br. 1-3). Nor has
the Appellant specifically challenged the Examiner’s factual basis for
combining the teachings of the prior art references (id.). The Appellant’s
principal argument is that neither Calio nor Stadler teaches the claimed
programmable controller (Br. 6).
7
Appeal 2006-2564
Application 10/259,743

Thus, the dispositive question is whether Calio teaches the claimed
programmable controller. For the reasons set forth above, we answer this
question in the affirmative.
Accordingly, we concur with the Examiner that Calio and Stdler
would have rendered the subject matter defined by claims 14 and 15 obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Claims 13, 17, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as Unpatentable over the
Combined Disclosures of Skrovan, Calio, and Aigo.

The Examiner has found (Answer 5), and the Appellant has not
disputed, (Br. 6-8 and Reply Br. 1-3) that:
Skrovan teaches [a] cleaning apparatus, which comprises a
tank for holding [a] cleaning solution, [a] gas feed line with [an]
injection device for forming bubbles in the cleaning solution
(reads on “means for producing a physical action”, as instantly
claimed) and [a] controller, coupled to the gas feed line (see
Abstract; col. 7, lines 34-38; claims 15, 16, 18; Fig. 1, 2). The
cleaning apparatus of Skrovan is quipped with [a] recirculation
unit, which comprises a filter and a system for recharging the
filtered cleaning solution back to the cleaning tank (col. 4, lines
40-64).

The Examiner has acknowledged that Skrovan does not specifically mention
the claimed programmable controller (Answer 5).
The dispositive question is, therefore, whether one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been led to employ the claimed programmable controller
as the controller of the cleaning apparatus described by Skrovan. On this
record, we answer this question in the affirmative.
8
Appeal 2006-2564
Application 10/259,743

As found by the Examiner (Answer 5), Skrovan teaches “the amount
of [a] supplied gas…controlled by any known gas controlling system (col. 7,
lines 34-38).” The Appellant has admitted that a programmable device,
system, or subsystem for carrying out such a function was conventional at
the time of the invention (Specification 8). Moreover, as indicated supra,
Calio teaches a timer embraced by the claimed programmable controller.
Given this knowledge, we determine that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have been led to employ any conventional gas controlling system,
including the programmable controller or timer taught by Calio for the
purpose of controlling the amount of gas flowed into the cleaning apparatus
of Skrovan. Accordingly, we concur with the Examiner that Skrovan, Calio
and Aigo would have rendered the subject matter defined by claims 13, 17,
18, and 19 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Thus, for the factual findings and analyses set forth in the Answer and
above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting the claims on appeal
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e) and 103.

V. ORDER
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.

VI. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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

9
Appeal 2006-2564
Application 10/259,743

sld/clj

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P.O. BOX 655474
M/S 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
10