Ex Parte Huang et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 27, 2004

09886760 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 27, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte YU-CHIH HUANG,
ANNIESON TSENG and MICHAEL LAN
__________
Appeal No. 2004-2277
Application No. 09/886,760
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before STAAB, MCQUADE, and BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Yu-Chih Huang et al. appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 5, 7, 9 through 11, 13 and 15, all of the claims
pending in the application.
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to “an apparatus and a method for
aligning the loading/unloading of a wafer cassette onto/from a
loadport by an overhead hoist transport system utilizing laser
Appeal No. 2004-2277
Application No. 09/886,760
2
alignment” (specification, page 1). Representative claims 1 and
9 read as follows:
1. An apparatus for aligning the loading/unloading of a
wafer cassette to/from a loadport by an overhead hoist transport
(OHT) system comprising:
a loadport positioned on a floor having a top surface for
mounting a wafer cassette thereto, said top surface of the
loadport having at least two spaced-apart laser beam projectors
for projecting at least two laser beams upwardly toward an OHT
rail;
an OHT rail positioned over said loadport having a bottom
surface facing said loadport, said bottom surface being equipped
with an energy receiving means for receiving said at least two
laser beams and for sending out a signal to a process controller
to determine a position of said loadport;
a process controller for receiving a signal from said energy
receiving means and for comparing to pre-stored data for sending
out a signal to an OHT delivery arm; and
an OHT delivery arm for receiving a signal from said process
controller to correct the delivery position of said wafer
cassette onto said loadport based on said signal received.
9. A method for aligning the loading/unloading of a wafer
cassette to/from a loadport by an OHT system comprising the steps
of:
positioning a loadport on a floor having a top surface for
mounting a wafer cassette thereto;
mounting at least two spaced-apart laser beam projectors on
said top surface of the loadport for projecting at least two
laser beams upwardly toward an OHT rail;
positioning an OHT rail over said loadport having a bottom
surface facing said loadport;
mounting an energy receiving means on said bottom surface
for receiving said at least two laser beams and for sending out a
signal to a process controller to determine a position of said
loadport;
providing a process controller to receive a signal from said
energy receiving means and for comparing to pre-stored data to
send out a signal to an OHT delivery arm; and
adjusting the position of said OHT delivery arm based on
said signal received from said process controller to correct the
delivery position of said wafer cassette onto said loadport.
Appeal No. 2004-2277
Application No. 09/886,760
1 On page 6 in the answer, the examiner refers to an
additional reference, “Computer Control of Machines and Processes
by Bollinger and Duffie,” in apparent support of the appealed
rejection. As this reference is not included in the statement of
the rejection, we have not considered it in reviewing the merits
of the appeal. Where a reference is relied on to support a
rejection, whether or not in a minor capacity, there is no excuse
for not positively including the reference in the statement of
the rejection. In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ
406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970) and MPEP § 706.02(j).
3
THE PRIOR ART
The references relied on by the examiner to support the
final rejection are:
Thomas et al. (Thomas) 5,798,828 Aug. 25, 1998
The prior art wafer cassette handling apparatus and method
discussed in the appellants’ specification and depicted in
Figures 1 through 4 of the application drawings (the admitted
prior art).
THE REJECTION
Claims 1 through 5, 7, 9 through 11, 13 and 15 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
admitted prior art in view of Thomas.
Attention is directed to the brief (Paper No. 11) and answer
(Paper No. 12) for the respective positions of the appellants and
examiner regarding the merits of this rejection.1
Appeal No. 2004-2277
Application No. 09/886,760
4
DISCUSSION
It is not disputed that the admitted prior art wafer
cassette handling apparatus and method meet all of the
limitations in independent claims 1 and 9 except for those
pertaining to the laser beam projectors, the energy receiving
means and the measurement and control signals related thereto.
To overcome these deficiencies, the examiner turns to Thomas.
Thomas discloses a multi-axis position measuring system
useful in machine tool calibration and a variety of other
industrial applications:
[m]any critical positioning applications other
than machining will also benefit from the present
precision positioning apparatus, including operations
related to rail transport, autonomous materials
handling vehicles and robotic workstations. The
present invention has potential uses as either open-
loop or closed-loop feedback in assembly operations,
docking maneuvers, micromachining, laser machining,
material deposition, and inspection camera positioning
[column 3, lines 27 through 34].
The Thomas system includes an emitter unit 3 and a sensor
unit 5 mounted on relatively movable parts of a machine, and a
processing unit 7. The emitter unit consists of multiple laser
beam emitters 13, 15, and the sensor unit consists of multiple
CCD or photodetector arrays 21 for detecting the laser beams.
Appeal No. 2004-2277
Application No. 09/886,760
5
Together, the emitter and sensor units function to establish a
reference and to measure position deviations in order to provide
the accurate feedback necessary for positioning operations (see
column 6, line 49, through column 7, line 13). The processing
unit is a computer or a microcontroller which receives the
position information from the sensing unit for subsequent display
or for use as input in a closed-loop positioning system (see the
Abstract).
In combining the admitted prior art and Thomas to reject
independent claims 1 and 9, the examiner submits that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made to provide the admitted prior art
apparatus and method with the system taught by Thomas in order to
align the prior art loadport and wafer cassette delivery system
(see pages 4 and 5 in the answer).
The appellants counter that this rejection is unsound
because the applied prior art, and particularly Thomas, fails to
respond to the above noted claim limitations. According to the
appellants, “Thomas et al does not teach a closed-loop control
system that actually uses the measured data to perform any
correction in the positioning system (for adjusting any
misalignment)” (brief, page 7).
Appeal No. 2004-2277
Application No. 09/886,760
6
Although the Thomas patent does not include a detailed
description of any closed-loop control system that uses the
measured position data to correct misalignment, it expressly
indicates that the position measuring system disclosed therein
can be used for this purpose. Moreover, a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have readily appreciated this system to be
relevant to the admitted prior art wafer cassette handling
apparatus and method in view of (1) the disclosure by Thomas that
the system may be used in connection with rail transport,
material handling vehicles, robotic workstations and for docking
maneuvers, all of which are reasonably descriptive of the
admitted prior art wafer cassette handling apparatus and method,
and (2) the knowledge in the art that the admitted prior art
apparatus and method were subject to misalignment problems (see
the paragraph bridging pages 5 and 6 in the appellants’
specification).
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.
Appeal No. 2004-2277
Application No. 09/886,760
7
Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
In the present case, the foregoing teachings and knowledge
embodied by the admitted prior art and Thomas would have
furnished the artisan with ample suggestion or motivation to
provide the admitted prior art wafer cassette handling apparatus
and method with a closed-loop position control system based on
the position measuring system disclosed by Thomas in order to
solve the known misalignment problems of this apparatus and
method, thereby arriving at the subject matter recited in claims
1 and 9.
Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1 and 9 as being
unpatentable over the admitted prior art in view of Thomas.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claims 2 through 5, 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15
as being unpatentable over the admitted prior art in view of
Thomas since the appellants have not challenged such with any
reasonable specificity, thereby allowing these claims to stand or
fall with their respective parent claims 1 and 9 (see In re
Appeal No. 2004-2277
Application No. 09/886,760
8
Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir.
1987)).
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 5,
7, 9 through 11, 13 and 15 is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
)
) APPEALS AND
JOHN P. MCQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
)
JENNIFER D. BAHR )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JPM/kis
Appeal No. 2004-2277
Application No. 09/886,760
9
TUNG & ASSOCIATES
SUITE 120
838 W. LONG LAKE ROAD
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48302