Ex Parte Kwan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2013

11728799 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte YIM-BUN PATRICK KWAN,
HUBERT HOLDERER, JOHANNES DEYHLE, and CLAUDIA EKSTEIN
____________________

Appeal 2011-007559
Application 11/728,799
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-007559
Application 11/728,799

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-4, 9-13, 16-18, 20-23, 26-29, and 32-44. (App. Br. 1). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was scheduled for
October 17, 2013, however, Appellants waived the hearing in a paper filed
June 7, 2013. Therefore, we decide this appeal on the briefs.
We affirm.
INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is generally related to "support
structures for temporarily supporting a substrate during one of treatment and
handling of the substrate and, in particular, to support structures used in
optical systems performing an optical exposure process on a substrate" and
methods of manufacturing the support. (Spec. 1:3-5).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A support structure for temporarily supporting a substrate
in a support direction during one of treatment and handling of
said substrate comprising:
a base structure and
at least one layer connected to said base structure;
said at least one layer defining at least one protrusion of said
support structure;
said at least one layer having a first layer section, and a second
layer section in contact with said first layer section;
said first layer section defining said at least one protrusion
protruding from said second layer section;
said at least one protrusion defining a contact surface contacting
said substrate when said substrate is supported by said support
structure;
Appeal 2011-007559
Application 11/728,799

3
said at least one layer comprising a wear resistant layer
material;
said base structure comprising a base body made of a base body
material having a coefficient of thermal expansion below
0.5 10-6 K-1 and being less wear resistant than said layer
material;
said at least one layer being formed on a component selected
from the group consisting of (a) said base body, (b) a carrier
element of said base structure connected to said base body, and
(c) a platform element of said base structure protruding in said
support direction and forming a platform facing in said support
direction;
said second layer section defining an interface area with said
component;
said contact surface having a contact surface area of a contact
surface size;
said second layer section forming a stress distribution layer
with said interface area having an interface area size being
larger than said contact surface size.

REFERENCES
Di Milia US 4,551,192 Nov. 5, 1985
Xu US 5,841,624 Nov. 24, 1998
Takabayashi US 5,923,408 July 13, 1999
Moshrefzadeh US 6,077,560 June 20, 2000
Kondo US 2002/0008864 A1 Jan. 24, 2002
Van Empel US 2005/0024620 A1 Feb. 3, 2005
Ottens US 2005/0117141 A1 June 2, 2005
Maria Zaal US 2006/0102277 A1 May 18, 2006

Appeal 2011-007559
Application 11/728,799

4
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-4, 9-13, 16, 18, and 38-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Empel in view of Ottens. (Ans. 4-
12).
Claims 17 and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Van Empel in view of Ottens, and in further view of
Takabayashi. (Ans. 12-16).
Claims 20-23, 26-29, and 33-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Empel in view of Ottens, Xu, and
Maria Zaal. (Ans. 16-24).
Claim 32 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Van Empel, Ottens, Xu, Maria Zaal, and Di Milia. (Ans.
24-25).
Claim 42 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Van Empel in view of Ottens and Kondo. (Ans. 25-27,
Final Rej. 23-25).
Claims 43 and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Van Empel in view of Ottens, and in further view of
Moshrefzadeh. (Ans. 27-28).

ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 1, 10, 20, 38, 41, and 42,
Appellants set forth an initial argument with respect to Van Empel in view
of Otten's for independent claim 1 (App. Br. 11-14 ). Appellants rely on this
same basic contention for independent claims 10, 20, 38, 41, and 42 with
little additional detail beyond generalized arguments. (App. Br. 14-17).
Appeal 2011-007559
Application 11/728,799

5
Therefore, we address Appellants' arguments with respect to representative
independent claim 1.
The Examiner's rejection relies upon the structure of Van Empel with
the addition of a wear resistant material in the micro-burls. (Answer 4-6).
The Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the
material of a protrusion as taught by Ottens in the protrusion
layer as taught by Van Empel, thereby providing for a base
material being less wear resistant than said layer material,
because as taught by Ottens in [0052], titanium nitride is wear
resistant, which could extend the lifetime of the substrate
support structure.

(Ans. 6). We agree with the Examiner.
Appellants' first contention is that based on the teachings of Van
Empel "it would not have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify
Van Empel to provide the subject matter covered by claims 1-4 and 9."
(App. Br. 13). We find Appellants' arguments to be unpersuasive and
directed to arguing the references individually. 
Appellants have not demonstrated error in the rejection applied
against claim 1, but have instead alleged deficiencies in the references, taken
one at a time, as if the rejection were for lack of novelty. However,
nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)).
Appellants contend even if the wear resistant covering of Otten's is
placed on the micro-burl of Van Empel, "the result would be a wear resistant
Appeal 2011-007559
Application 11/728,799

6
covering on Van Empel's micro-burls 5, where the wear resistant material
has the same diameter as the micro-burls 5. In this configuration, however,
the wear resistant covering would not be in contact with the burls 3." (App.
Br. 14). We disagree with Appellants and find the Examiner does not
suggest placing a layer on top of the micro-burl, but rather forming the
micro-burl of the wear resistant material. The Examiner maintains Ottens is
"relied upon to teach a wear resistant material from which the micro-burls 5
of van Empel can be made." (Ans. 30). We agree with the Examiner.
Additionally, Appellants contend the wear resistant material disclosed
in Ottens "would not have the elastic properties as referred to [in] Van
Empel reference." (Reply Br. 2). We disagree with Appellants and find the
forces from the elastic deformation are reduced and Van Empel's figures
show little or no deformation in the micro-burls 5, but rather deformation
from the wafer. Furthermore, Appellants' argument is directed to unclaimed
subject matter and is not appurtenant to the claimed invention. Attorney
arguments and conclusory statements unsupported by factual evidence are
entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed.
Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984);
and Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, slip op. at 7-8 (BPAI Aug. 10,
2009) (informative), available at
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/its/fd09004693.pdf.
Therefore, Appellants' argument is unpersuasive of error in the Examiner's
conclusion of obviousness, and we sustain the rejection of representative
independent claim 1 and independent claim 10 and their dependent claims
grouped therewith.
Appeal 2011-007559
Application 11/728,799

7
With respect to independent claims 20, 38, 41, and 42, we observe
that these independent claims are directed to a different statutory class of
invention directed to "a method of manufacturing a support structure…."
Appellants have relied upon the arguments directed to independent claim 1
which recites the "support structure." First, we group these independent
claims (and their respective dependent claims) as falling with representative
independent claim 1 since Appellants have not set forth separate arguments
for patentability. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Second, we find
Appellants' argument to be unpersuasive since the resulting support structure
does not limit or differentiate the method of manufacturing. For example,
independent method claim 38 merely sets forth a first step and a second step
and the remainder of the claim limitations does not specifically, actively, or
functionally limit the "method of manufacturing." We find Appellants'
proffered arguments with respect to independent claim 1 to be unpersuasive
for these two manufacturing limitations. Therefore, Appellants' argument is
unpersuasive of error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness, and we
sustain the rejection of independent claims 20, 38, 41, and 42 and their
respective dependent claims as falling with representative independent claim
1.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-4, 9-13, 16-18, 20-23,
26-29, and 32-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 9-13, 16-18, 20-23,
Appeal 2011-007559
Application 11/728,799

8
26-29, and 32-44 is sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

llw