Ex Parte Miceli et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 7, 2013

11237569 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________
Ex parte FRANK MICELI, JOSE OMAR RODRIQUEZ,
ANDRES B. GARCIA, and CHARLES A. STOREY
____________
Appeal 2010-009242
Application 11/237,569
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, GLENN J. PERRY, and
JENNIFER S. BISK, Administrative Patent Judges.

ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-009242
Application 11/237,569

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-4, 8, and 9. App. Br. 3. Claims 5-7 have been
cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method of manufacturing an integrated circuit
that includes exposing a wafer to an energy source, defining a focal plane
with a depth of focus associated therewith, and conforming the wafer to
correspond with the focal plane. Abstract.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of manufacturing an integrated circuit,
the method comprising:
a) positioning a wafer on at least one ring located on a
wafer translation stage to receive high frequency energy
defining a focal plane having an associated curvature and depth
of focus, the at least one ring having a diameter less than that of
the wafer and a height such that a space is located between the
wafer and the wafer translation stage and into which a portion
of the wafer may extend; and
b) bending the wafer such that a portion of the wafer
extends into the space and a surface of the wafer generally
matches the focal plane/curvature.

Prior Art Relied Upon
La Fiandra US 4,425,038 Jan. 10, 1984
Stagaman US 5,563,684 Oct. 8, 1996
Sakakibara US 6,072,561 June 6, 2000

Appeal 2010-009242
Application 11/237,569

3
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 4, 8, and 9 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Stagaman and La Fiandra. Ans. 4-7.
Claims 2 and 3 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Stagaman, La Fiandra, and
Sakakibara. Id. at 7-8.
Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
The Examiner finds that La Fiandra discloses a plate ring
configuration that compresses and deforms a wafer. Ans. 5 and 9. In
particular, the Examiner finds that Figure 1 of La Fiandra illustrates a
pressure system, i.e., the vacuum 26 and air pressure 38, which compresses
and deflects O rings 20, 21, 28, and 34 while the wafer 10 remains in contact
with platen 12, i.e., the wafer translation stage, due to the pull of the vacuum
26. Id. According to the Examiner, the resulting force on the wafer 10
causes it to bend against the compressed O rings 20, 21, 28, and 34, thereby
extending the wafer 10 into spaces 19 and 22, as required by independent
claim 1. Id. at 9. Further, the Examiner concludes that one with ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have been able to
substitute Stagaman’s adjustable pin system with La Fiandra’s plate ring
configuration in order to provide a pressure sufficiently high to produce
strain and deform the wafer until proper geometry of the wafer is achieved.
Ans. 5 (citing to La Fiandra col. 1, ll. 58-63); see also Ans. 8-9 and 12.
Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend that based on the relative size comparison of the
openings 19 and vacuum channels 22 illustrated in Figure 1 of La Fiandra,
the wafer 10 cannot extend into either the openings 19 or the vacuum
Appeal 2010-009242
Application 11/237,569

4
channels 22 when the vacuum 26 pulls on the wafer 10. App. Br. 6-7; Reply
Br. 4. Therefore, Appellants assert that the combination of Stagaman and La
Fiandra does not teach bending the wafer such that it extends into the space
between the wafer and the wafer translation stage, as required by
independent claim 1. App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 4. Further, Appellants argue
that the Examiner does not provide a sufficient rationale for combining
Stagaman and La Fiandra. App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 2-4.

II. ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in determining that the combination of
Stagaman and La Fiandra renders independent claim 1 unpatentable? In
particular, this issue turns on whether:
(a) the combination of Stagaman and La Fiandra collectively
teaches “bending the wafer such that a portion of the wafer extends into the
space [located between the wafer and the wafer translation stage][,]” as
recited in independent claim 1; and
(b) the Examiner provides an articulated reason with a rationale
underpinning to justify the legal conclusion of obviousness.

III. ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection—Combination of Stagaman and La Fiandra
Claim 1
Based on the record before us, we do not discern error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, which recites,
inter alia, “bending the wafer such that a portion of the wafer extends into
the space [located between the wafer and the wafer translation stage][.]”
Appeal 2010-009242
Application 11/237,569

5
The Examiner takes the position that Figures 1 and 2 of La Fiandra
illustrate a plate ring configuration that compresses and deforms a wafer.
Ans. 5 (citing to col. 2, ll. 31-50); see also Ans. 9. For convenience, Figure
1 of La Fiandra is reproduced below:

Figure 1 of La Fiandra illustrates an apparatus with a movable platen
12 that holds a wafer 10. Col. 2, ll. 18-21. The surface of the platen 12
consist of vacuum grooves 22, interconnected by openings 19, all of which
are connected through an opening 24 to vacuum 26. Id. at ll. 31-34. In
addition, La Fiandra discloses that flexible O rings 20, 21, 28, and 34
provide a seal that is in close proximity to the edge of the wafer 10. Id. at ll.
38-44. As a result of the sealing provided by the flexible O rings 20, 21, 28,
and 34, La Fiandra provides a sealed pressure chamber 36 around the outer
edge of the wafer 10. Id. at ll. 45-47. La Fiandra discloses that an air
pressure source 38 is connected to the chamber 36 through opening 40 such
that air pressure may be applied to the edge of the wafer 10 to produce a
compressive strain thereon. Id. at ll. 51-54. La Fiandra discloses achieving
Appeal 2010-009242
Application 11/237,569

6
different deformations of the wafer 10 by varying the air pressure applied to
the edge of the wafer 10. Id. at ll. 58-66.
Based on La Fiandra’s Figure 1 and the corresponding text, the
Examiner finds that the resulting force on La Fiandra’s wafer 10 causes it to
bend against the compressed O rings 20, 21, 28, and 34, thereby extending
the wafer 10 into spaces 19 and 22. Ans. 9. We agree with the Examiner.
Because the wafer 10 may be deformed, e.g., bent, by varying the air
pressure applied to the edge of the wafer 10 (col. 2, ll. 58-66), one with
ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that individual portions of La
Fiandra’s wafer 10 may extend into the spaces located in openings 19 and
vacuum grooves 22. Contrary to Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 6-8; Reply
Br. 4), there is nothing in La Fiandra’s disclosure indicating that the relative
size of the openings 19 and vacuum grooves 22 makes it impossible for
individual portions of the wafer 10 to physically extend into those spaces
when the appropriate amount of air pressure is applied to the edge of the
wafer 10. As such, the Examiner has presented sufficient evidence to
warrant a finding that La Fiandra teaches the disputed claim limitation.
Rationale to Combine
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner
does not provide a sufficient rationale for combining Stagaman and La
Fiandra. App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 2-4. The U.S. Supreme Court has held
that “[t]he obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic
conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by
overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit
content of issued patents.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419
(2007). Instead, the relevant inquiry is whether the Examiner has set forth
Appeal 2010-009242
Application 11/237,569

7
“some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). In addition, the Court
instructs that the simple substitution of one known element for another is
likely to be obvious if it does no more than yield predictable results. See
KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Upon reviewing the record before us, we find that the Examiner’s
suggestion for modifying Stagaman with La Fiandra suffices as an
articulated reason with a rational underpinning to justify the legal conclusion
of obviousness. That is, one with ordinary skill in the art of integrated
circuits, at the time of the claimed invention, would have substituted
Stagaman’s adjustable pin system (fig. 3) with La Fiandra’s plate ring
configuration (fig. 1) in order to provide a pressure sufficiently high to
produce a compressive strain and deform the wafer until proper geometry of
the wafer is achieved. Ans. 5 (citing to La Fiandra col. 1, ll. 58-63); see also
Ans. 8-9 and 12. In addition, the mere substitution of La Fiandra’s plate ring
configuration for Stagaman’s adjustable pin system predictably uses prior art
elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement.
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Moreover, Appellants have not provided any
evidence that such a substitution is beyond the level of an ordinarily skilled
artisan. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157,
1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). It follows that the Examiner has not erred in
concluding that the combination of Stagaman and La Fiandra renders
independent claim 1 unpatentable.

Appeal 2010-009242
Application 11/237,569

8

Claim 4
Appellants present essentially the same argument set forth in response
to the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 to rebut the obviousness
rejection of dependent claim 4. App. Br. 8-9. We have already addressed
that argument in our discussion of independent claim 1, and we found it
unpersuasive. It follows that the Examiner did not err in concluding that the
combination of Stagaman and La Fiandra renders dependent claim 4
unpatentable.
Claim 8
The Examiner finds that La Fiandra’s vacuum process constitutes
“bending [that] includes using a vacuum to pull a portion of the wafer into
the space to thereby conform a surface of the wafer[,]” as recited in
dependent claim 8. Ans. 10-11. In particular, the Examiner finds that as the
air pressure provides a compressive strain on La Fiandra’s wafer and, as a
result, compresses the O rings, the vacuum ensures that the wafer bends by
pulling the wafer into the space left void as a result of the compression. Id.
at 10. Put another way, the Examiner finds that without La Fiandra’s
vacuum, there is no control over the direction of the wafer conformation. Id.
Appellants contend that the combination of Stagaman and La Fiandra
does not teach the elements recited in dependent claim 8. App. Br. 9. In
particular, Appellants contend that while La Fiandra’s vacuum holds the
wafer in place, the purpose of the vacuum is not to bend the wafer into a
space located between the wafer and the translation stage. Id. Appellants
maintain that it is not physically possible for La Fiandra’s wafer to bend into
Appeal 2010-009242
Application 11/237,569

9
the openings 19 and vacuum channels 22. Id. We do not agree with
Appellants.
As discussed above, because La Fiandra’s wafer 10 may be deformed,
e.g., bent, by varying the air pressure applied to the edge of the wafer 10
(col. 2, ll. 58-66), one with ordinary skill in the art would have recognized
that individual portions of the wafer 10 may extend into the spaces located in
the openings 19 and vacuum grooves 22. Moreover, Appellants agree that
La Fiandra’s vacuum uses pressure to hold the wafer 10 on the surface of the
platen 12. App. Br. 9 (citing to col. 2, ll. 31-37). Given that cited
disclosure, one with ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the
pressure applied from La Fiandra’s vacuum bends or conforms the surface of
the wafer 10 by pulling individual portions of the wafer 10 into the spaces
located in the openings 19 and vacuum grooves 22. Therefore, we agree
with the Examiner that La Fiandra teaches the disputed claim limitation.
Ans. 10-11. It follows that the Examiner has not erred in concluding that the
combination of Stagaman and La Fiandra renders dependent claim 8
unpatentable.
Claim 9
Appellants do not provide separate and distinct arguments for
patentability with respect to dependent claim 9. See App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br.
2-4. Therefore, we group dependent claim 9 with its underlying base claim.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Consequently, dependent claim 9 falls with
independent claim 1.
Appeal 2010-009242
Application 11/237,569

10
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection—Combination of Stagaman, La Fiandra, and
Sakakibara

Claims 2 and 3
Appellants contend that Sakakibara does not cure the above-noted
deficiencies in the Examiner’s combination of Stagaman and La Fiandra.
App. Br. 10-11. As discussed above, there are no such deficiencies in the
combination of Stagaman and La Fiandra for Sakakibara to remedy. It
follows that the Examiner has not erred in concluding that the combination
of Stagaman, La Fiandra, and Sakakibara renders dependent claims 2 and 3
unpatentable.

IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner has not erred in rejecting
claims 1-4, 8, and 9 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

V. DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-4, 8, and 9.
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

alw