Ex Parte Nam et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 26, 2010

10833638 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 26, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SEUNG-MAN NAM, BYEONG-KI RHEEM, and
JIN-HYEUNG JANG
____________

Appeal 2009-007760
Application 10/833,638
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: LINDA E. HORNER, JOHN C. KERINS, and KEN B. BARRETT,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-007760
Application 10/833,638
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Seung-man Nam et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 18, 20-22 and 25, 26, and
28. Br. 3. 2 Claims 1-17, 19, 23, 24 and 27 are cancelled. Id. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is a wafer transfer method. Spec. 1:8-
10. Claim 18, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
18. A transfer method for unloading a plurality of
semiconductor substrates, the method comprising:
providing a multi-arm apparatus having a plurality of
blades for unloading semiconductor substrates disposed within
successively arranged process slots of a container, wherein each
one of the plurality of blades comprises an independently
controllable vacuum line for vacuum retaining one of the
plurality of semiconductor substrates;
providing a single-arm apparatus having a single blade
for vacuum retaining one semiconductor substrate disposed
within a process slot of the container;
unloading the semiconductor substrates using the multi-
arm apparatus when the number of successively disposed
process slots is greater than or equal to the number of the blades
of the multi-arm apparatus;
unloading the semiconductor substrates using the single
arm apparatus when the number of successively disposed
process slots is less than the number of the blades of the multi-
arm apparatus;

2 Appellants incorrectly list claims 19 and 27 as appealed; however, these
claims are cancelled. App. Br. 3; Ans. 2 (referencing the after-final
amendment filed on March 25, 2008, which was entered as noted in the
Advisory Action of April 11, 2008).
Appeal 2009-007760
Application 10/833,638
3
determining whether there is a vacant one of the slots;
and
closing a control valve connected to a vacuum line
formed at a blade corresponding to the vacant slot in the multi-
arm apparatus.
THE REJECTION
Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18, 20-
22 and 25, 26, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Cameron
(US 6,632,065 B1).
ANALYSIS
Claim 18
Appellants argue claims 18 and 20-22 as a group. Br. 6-8. We select
independent claim 18 as the representative claim, and claims 20-22 stand or
fall with claim 18. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants argue that Cameron does not disclose all the elements of
claim 18 because the embodiment described in Cameron’s Figure 8 is not
expressly described as being used together with the earlier-disclosed
embodiments, but rather is one of “two different methods” of transferring
substrates. Br. 6-7. Appellants also argue that Cameron does not disclose
the steps of “a) determining whether there is a vacant slot in the cassette
140; and b) closing a vacuum control valve 144 connected to a vacuum line
formed at a blade corresponding to the vacant slot in the multiple substrate
batch loader 34” because Cameron’s multiple substrate batch loader 24 is
never used to unload semiconductor substrates when the number of
successively disposed substrates is less than the number of blades of the
multiple substrate batch loader 24. Br. 7-8 (citing to the example in
Cameron at col. 5, ll. 7-24).
Appeal 2009-007760
Application 10/833,638
4
The issues before us are:
Would a person of ordinary skill, upon reading Cameron’s disclosure
as a whole, understand the embodiment associated with Cameron’s Figure 8
to be distinct from, or instead an enhancement of, the earlier described
embodiments?
Does Cameron disclose using the multiple substrate batch loader 24 to
unload semiconductor substrates when the number of successively disposed
substrates is less than the number of blades of the multiple substrate batch
loader 24?
For the reasons provided by the Examiner in the Answer, we disagree
with the Appellants’ reading of Cameron. In particular, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art, reading
Cameron’s disclosure as a whole, would understand that the embodiment
associated with Figure 8 is an enhancement of earlier-disclosed
embodiments rather than an embodiment distinct from the earlier-disclosed
embodiments. Ans. 5. As such, we adopt the Examiner’s finding and
analysis as our own.
We also agree with the Examiner’s findings as to the disclosed use of
Cameron’s multiple substrate batch loader. Ans. 6. In particular, we agree
with the Examiner that the example Appellants point to in Cameron is not
limiting. Ans. 6. We also agree with the Examiner’s finding that Cameron’s
device includes a vacuum sensor 1193 designed to detect the absence of a
substrate on an individual paddle of multiple substrate batch loader 24, and
that this condition occurs when the number of successively disposed
substrates is less than the number of blades of the multiple substrate batch

3 The reference numeral was not included in this portion of the Examiner’s
Answer, but was contained in the portion of Cameron cited by the Answer.
Appeal 2009-007760
Application 10/833,638
5
loader 24. Ans. 6 (citing to Cameron col. 5, ll. 25-50; col. 6, ll. 33-44). We
thus also agree with the Examiner’s finding that Cameron’s multiple
substrate batch loader 24 was designed to unload semiconductor substrates
when the number of successively disposed substrates is less than the number
of blades of the multiple substrate batch loader 24. The Examiner’s findings
are well supported by the reference, and we adopt them as our own.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 18. Claims 20-22 fall
with claim 18.
Claim 25
Appellants argue claims 25, 26, and 28 as a group. Br. 8-9. We select
independent claim 25 as the representative claim, and claims 26 and 28 stand
or fall with claim 25. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants argue that Cameron’s device uses vacuum sensor 119 to
determine the presence or absence of a wafer (substrate) after the blades
(paddles 116) of the multi-arm apparatus (multiple substrate batch loader 24)
are inserted into a slot, while claim 25 requires identifying the presence or
absence of a vacant slot before the blades are inserted into a slot. Br. 8
(parenthetical nomenclature to Cameron).
The issue before us is:
Does Cameron disclose identifying the presence or absence of a wafer
in a process slot before inserting the blades of the multi-arm apparatus into
the slot?
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Cameron discloses using
object sensor 58 to perform the identifying steps in advance of inserting the
blades of the multi-arm apparatus into the slots. Ans. 4 (citing to Cameron,
col. 5, ll. 7-50), Ans. 7 (citing to Cameron, col. 5, ll. 39-42 (“the vacuum
signal interpreter 132 operates as a redundant failsafe mechanism or,
Appeal 2009-007760
Application 10/833,638
6
alternatively, as a substitute mechanism if an object sensor 58 is not
available”); col. 6, ll. 45-47). Appellants’ argument that Cameron’s vacuum
sensor 119 performs the identifying steps only after the blades have been
inserted into the slots fails to address the Examiner’s finding that Cameron’s
object sensor 58 performs the identifying steps of claim 25. We agree with
the Examiner’s findings and adopt them as our own.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 25. Claims 26 and 28
fall with claim 25.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 18, 20-22, 25,
26, and 28.

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) (2007).
AFFIRMED

nhl

MARGER JOHNSON & MCCOLLOM, P.C.
210 SW MORRISON STREET, SUITE 400
PORTLAND OR 97204