Ex Parte JANG et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 7, 2011

11758754 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 7, 2011)

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.
11/758,754 06/06/2007 Geun-Ha JANG 6534-027 5053
83219 7590 10/07/2011
HOSOON LEE
9600 SW OAK ST. SUITE 525
TIGARD, OR 97223
EXAMINER
ADAMS, GREGORY W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3652
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/07/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GEUN-HA JANG and CHI-WOOK YU
____________

Appeal 2009-014430
Application 11/758,754
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, JOHN C. KERINS, and
STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-014430
Application 11/758,754

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Geun-Ha Jang and Chi-Wook Yu (Appellants) seek our review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-40. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “a cluster device [for]
transferring substrates among modules of thin film processing.” Spec. 2,
para. [0002]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A transfer chamber comprising:
a first transfer chamber body having at least one first
opening for transferring a substrate;
a second transfer chamber body having at least one
second opening for transferring the substrate, the first and
second transfer chamber bodies detachably coupled to each
other so that inner spaces of the first and second transfer
chamber bodies are connected to each other, wherein the first
and second transfer chamber bodies are vertically arranged; and
a first robot for transferring the substrate disposed in the
inner spaces of the first and second transfer chamber bodies
connected to each other.
THE EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies upon the following evidence:
Boyd US 5,746,434 May 5, 1998
Muka US 6,062,798 May 16, 2000
Saeki US 2001/0053324 A1 Dec. 20, 2001
Kirimura US 6,391,114 B1 May 21, 2002
Sato JP H04-240721 A Aug. 28, 1992
Appeal 2009-014430
Application 11/758,754

3
THE REJECTIONS
Appellants seek review of the following rejections:
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11-14, 16-18, 20-22, 24-29,
33, 36, and 38-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Saeki, Sato, and Muka.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 10, 15, 19, 23, 30-32, 34, 35, and 37
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Saeki, Sato,
Muka, and Boyd.
3. The Examiner rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Saeki, Sato, Muka, and Kirimura.
ISSUE
Appellants argue claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11-14, 16-18, 20-22, 24-29, 33, 36,
and 38-40 as a group. Br. 5-6. We select claim 1 as representative and the
remaining claims subject to the first ground of rejection stand or fall
therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appellants rely on the same
arguments presented for patentability of claim 1 to argue for patentability of
the claims subject to the second and third grounds of rejection. Br. 6. As
such, the patentability of these claims turns on our analysis of the rejection
of claim 1.
Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
been led to combine the teachings of Saeki, Sato, and Muka to result in a
transfer chamber having “first and second transfer chamber bodies
detachably coupled to each other so that inner spaces of the first and second
transfer chamber bodies are connected to each other, wherein the first and
Appeal 2009-014430
Application 11/758,754

4
second transfer chamber bodies are vertically arranged” as called for in
claim 1. Br. 5-6.
The issue presented by this appeal is whether the Examiner articulated
adequate reasoning based on rational underpinnings to explain why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed transfer chamber
having first and second transfer chamber bodies in view of the combined
teachings of Saeki, Sato, and Muka.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner found that Saeki discloses the transfer chamber of
claim 1 except that it does not disclose “first and second transfer chamber
bodies vertically arranged.” Ans. 4. The Examiner found that Sato discloses
vertically arranging transfer chamber bodies “‘to suppress the occupying
design area’ of a multi chamber process device,” and therefore it would have
been obvious to modify Saeki to vertically arrange its first and second
chambers “to save floor space.” Id. The Examiner further found that “Muka
discloses a first and second robot 204 vertically arranged, e.g. can extend in
a vertical direction to access stacked vertically arranged process chambers”
and “teaches that this ‘will allow more of them to be placed side-by-side in a
given floor space than the old apparatus.’” Ans. 5 (citing Muka, col. 4, ll. 1-
25). The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to further
modify Saeki to include a robot in a single chamber that can access stacked
process chambers, “to save floor space.” Id. We find that the Examiner’s
reasoning is based on explicit teachings/suggestions in the prior art as to the
Appeal 2009-014430
Application 11/758,754

5
advantages of vertically stacking transfer chambers in such an environment
and is thus based on rational underpinnings.
Appellants argue that Saeki’s transfer chambers are horizontally
arranged and connected to each other to form one integral transfer chamber
having a common transfer robot moved along horizontal guide rails. Br. 5.
Appellants further argue that “in Sato, inner spaces of the wafer carrying
chambers 26 and 27 are connected to each other and form two separate
interior spaces that are not connected to each other unlike Saeki and/or the
claimed invention.” Id. Appellants then conclude that “one skilled in the art
would not modify the transfer chambers of Saeki as per teachings of Sato.”
Id. This argument provides no explanation as to why the Examiner erred in
concluding that one of ordinary skill would have been led by Sato to
vertically stack Saeki’s chambers to save floor space. The Examiner did not
propose to modify Saeki’s chambers to make them form two separate
interior spaces, as in Sato. As such, Appellants’ argument does not
adequately address the modification of Saeki proposed by the Examiner.
Appellants further argue that vertically stacking Saeki’s transfer
chambers would render Saeki inoperable because Saeki’s robot is designed
to move along horizontal guide rails. Br. 6. “A person of ordinary skill in
the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). One of ordinary skill in the
art would recognize that if Saeki’s transfer chambers were modified to be
vertically stacked, then Saeki’s robot would likewise need to be modified to
move in a vertical fashion. Appellants’ have not argued that such a
Appeal 2009-014430
Application 11/758,754

6
modification would be beyond the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in
the art. In fact, both Sato and Muka disclose robots capable of accessing
vertically stacked transfer and/or process chambers, and thus demonstrate
that such a modification would be within the level of skill of one of ordinary
skill in the art. See Sato, para. [0013] (“Not shown in the illustration, a
wafer transport arm (wafer transport device), which is provided for
transporting wafers (A) between the wafer loading chamber (22) and each of
the processing chambers (29)-(29) and (31)-(31), is equipped inside the
primary and secondary wafer transport chambers (26) and (27).”) and Muka,
col. 4, ll. 62-66; fig. 3 (transport mechanism 34 at position B about to insert
the substrate S into a lower processing module 27 and at a different position
C about to insert the substrate S into an upper processing module 26). As
such, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner articulated adequate reasoning based on rational
underpinnings to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been led to the claimed transfer chamber in view of the combined teachings
of Saeki, Sato, and Muka.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-40 is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
nlk