Ex Parte Sekimoto et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2016

12543832 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/543,832 08/19/2009
513 7590 02/29/2016
WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, LLP,
1030 15th Street, N.W.,
Suite 400 East
Washington, DC 20005-1503
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Masahiko SEKIMOTO
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2009_1252 8126
EXAMINER
WITTENBERG, STEFANIE S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1756
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/29/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
ddalecki@wenderoth.com
eoa@wenderoth.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MASAHIKO SEKIMOTO, Y ASUHIKO ENDO, STEPHEN
STRAUSSER, TAKASHI TAKEMURA, NOBUTOSHI SAITO, FUMIO
KURIY AMA, JUNICHIRO YOSHIOKA, KUNIAKI RORIE, YOSHIO
MINAMI, and KENJI KAMODA
Appeal2014-009352
Application 12/543,832
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and JEFFREY R.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 61-70. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 We refer to the Specification ("Spec."), Final Office Action ("Final Act."),
Appeal Brief ("Br.") and Examiner's Answer ("Ans.").
2 Appellants identify Ebara Corporation as the real party in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-009352
Application 12/543,832
BACKGROUND
Appellants' claimed invention relates to an apparatus for plating
substrates, e.g., semiconductor wafers, in which a controller is configured to
select a substrate holder corresponding to a detected size of a substrate to be
plated. Spec. 1, 45--46. Claims 61 and 66 are illustrative:
61. A plating apparatus comprising:
a loading/unloading section configured to load and
unload a cassette housing substrates;
a first sensor provided in said loading/unloading section
for detecting sizes of the substrates received in the cassette;
plural types of substrate holders configured to detachably
hold the substrates, respectively, said plural types of substrate
holders including seal packings respectively corresponding to
different sizes of the substrates,
a tool stocker to store said plural types of substrate
holders;
a plating section configured to perform at least a plating
process;
a controller configured to select a substrate holder
corresponding to a size detected by said first sensor from said
plural types of substrate holders; and
a transfer device configured to hold and transfer said
substrate holder selected by said controller to said plating
section,
wherein said plural types of substrate holders have the
same shape and each of said substrate holders includes a
stationary support member and a ring-shaped movable support
member for holding a respective one of the substrates
therebetween, said movable support member having an opening
through which a surface to be plated is exposed, and
wherein each of said seal packings is configured to seal a
peripheral portion of a respective one of the substrates with the
surface to be plated being exposed, to prevent plating solution
from entering the peripheral portions of the substrates, when the
2
Appeal2014-009352
Application 12/543,832
substrate is held in one of the substrate holders between said
stationary support member and said movable support
member.
66. A plating apparatus comprising:
a loading/unloading section configured to load and
unload a cassette housing substrates;
a first sensor provided in said loading/unloading section
for detecting sizes of the substrates received in the cassette;
plural types of substrate holders configured to detachably
hold the substrates, respectively,
a tool stocker to store said plural types of substrate
holders;
a plating section configured to perform at least a plating
process;
a controller configured to select a substrate holder
corresponding to a size detected by said first sensor from said
plural types of substrate holders; and
a transfer device configured to hold and transfer said
substrate holder selected by said controller to said plating
section;
wherein said plural types of substrate holders have the
same shape and each of said substrate holders includes a
stationary support member and a ring-shaped movable support
member for holding a respective one of the substrates
therebetween, said movable support member having an opening
through which a surface to be plated is exposed.
Br. 15, 17 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).
3
Appeal2014-009352
Application 12/543,832
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected the claims as follows: 3
I. Claims 61 and 66 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Y oshioka4 in view of Sato5 and Powell. 6
II. Claims 62, 63, 67 and 68 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Yoshioka in view of Sato, Powell and Stoltz.7
III. Claims 64, 65, 69 and 70 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Yoshioka in view of Sato, Powell, Stoltz and
Kobayashi. 8
DISCUSSION
With regard to Rejection I, Appellants argue claims 61 and 66
together (Br. 5-13). Both those claims recite, inter alia, a sensor, a
controller and plural types of substrate holders. Claim 61 additionally
recites a seal packing associated with each substrate holder. Compare Br. 15
with Br. 17.
The Examiner found that Yoshioka discloses a semiconductor plating
apparatus comprising a plurality of substrate holders 232 stored in a holder
container 230, a sensor 214 for detecting the existence of a substrate in a
cassette, a loading/unloading station 210 at which a substrate is moved from
the cassette to a substrate holder selected from the holder container, and a
controller configured to control operation at the loading/unloading station.
3 Ans. 2-8; Final Act. 3-8.
4 US 2002/0029963 Al, published March 14, 2002 ("Yoshioka").
5 JP07-283291, as translated, published October 27, 1995 ("Sato").
6 US 4,428,815, issued January 31, 1984 ("Powell").
7 US 2,473,918, issued June 21, 1949 ("Stoltz").
8 US 4,608,138, issued August 26, 1986 ("Kobayashi").
4
Appeal2014-009352
Application 12/543,832
Ans. 2-3 (referencing Yoshioka Fig. 13). The Examiner further found that
each of Yoshioka's disclosed substrate holders includes a "seal packing
[which] is configured to seal a peripheral portion of a substrate." Id. 3. The
Examiner acknowledged that Yoshioka' s substrate holders do not include
"seal packings respectively corresponding to different sizes of the
substrates," and that Yoshioka's controller is not configured to select a
holder type corresponding to a detected substrate size. Id. 3.
Powell discloses a semiconductor substrate holder for use in a plating
operation. Id. 4 (citing Powell Abstract). The Examiner found that Powell
teaches providing interchangeable substrate holder supports of different
sizes, to selectively accommodate differently-sized substrates in the plating
operation. Id. 5 (citing Powell col. 5, 11. 41-50). The Examiner additionally
found that Sato teaches equipping a semiconductor substrate handling
apparatus with a sensor adapted to detect a size of substrates housed in a
cassette, and a controller configured to adjust wafer handling mechanisms in
response to the detected substrate size. Id. 3--4 (citing Sato Fig. 1, i-fi-15, 16).9
Based on those findings, which Appellants do not dispute, the Examiner
concluded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to provide Yoshioka' s substrate holders in various sizes to
accommodate differently-sized substrates to be plated, and to configure
Yoshioka's controller to select a holder that corresponds to a detected
substrate size. Id. 5.
9 We refer to the machine translation of Sato entered on March 21, 2012,
which we understand to be the "English translation" referenced by
Appellants. Br. 7.
5
Appeal2014-009352
Application 12/543,832
Appellants argue that "[b ]ecause Powell does not disclose plural types
of substrate holders having seal packings 10 corresponding to different sizes
of substrates," Powell could not have led one of ordinary skill to provide
those features in Yoshioka's apparatus. Br. 9. We disagree. Yoshioka
provides the noted substrate holders having seal packings. Specifically,
Yoshioka provides a plurality of holders, each of which includes a substrate
support in the form of a seal packing sized to seal the perimeter edge of a
given semiconductor substrate to be held for plating. Ans. 3; Yoshioka i-f 53.
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's finding that Powell teaches
providing substrate supports of different sizes to facilitate plating
semiconductor substrates of different sizes in a single plating apparatus.
Neither do Appellants dispute that it would have been advantageous to adapt
Yoshioka's plating apparatus to accommodate substrates of different sizes.
Thus, a preponderance of the evidence of record supports the Examiner's
determination that one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to
include holders of differently-sized seal packings in Yoshioka's plural
holders in order to support substrates of different sizes for plating.
Appellants' argument directed to an isolated reading of Powell is insufficient
to persuade us of reversible error in the Examiner's obviousness
determination. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986) (A reference "must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly
teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole.").
10 As noted, Appellants claim 66 does not recite seal packings. Thus, with
regard to Rejection I, Appellants' argument specifically regarding seal
packings is applicable only to claim 61.
6
Appeal2014-009352
Application 12/543,832
Appellants additionally argue that the Examiner's rationale does not
"identify actual structural elements in the prior art reference which could be
combined in a manner yielding the claimed subject matter." Br. 11.
Appellants particularly contend that Sato' s controller is not configured to
select a substrate holder corresponding to a detected substrate size. Br. 7-8.
"The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference ... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). In this case, the Examiner's
obviousness determination does not tum on whether one could bodily
incorporate Sato's controller into Yoshioka's apparatus. Rather, the
Examiner relied on Sato for the conceptual teaching of controlling substrate
handling mechanisms based on a sensor's detection of the size of a given
substrate. Ans. 3--4. In light of that teaching in Sato, together with Powelrs
teaching of providing differently-sized substrate supports to accommodate
differently-sized substrates in a plating operation, the Examiner determined
that it would have been obvious to "configure[] the controller of Yoshioka"
to select a substrate holder that corresponds to a detected substrate size. 11 Id.
5. The fact that Sato's controller is not identical to that which is claimed
does not negate the conceptual teaching of Sato which the Examiner
identified and relied upon.
11 Appellants do not contend in their Brief that configuring Yoshioka' s
controller in the manner articulated by the Examiner would have been
beyond the level of ordinary skill or accompanied by a lack of a reasonable
expectation of success.
7
Appeal2014-009352
Application 12/543,832
Appellants further contend that Sato sought to solve a problem-
preventing wafer damage-that the prior art does not identify as having been
exhibited by Yoshioka's apparatus. Br. 12. However, the Examiner
reasoned that one of ordinary skill would have been led to modify
Yoshioka' s apparatus in order to expand the capability of Yoshioka to plate
substrates of different sizes, in accordance with Powell's recognition that
substrates for plating come in different sizes. Ans. 5. Appellants do not
point us to any evidence or technical reasoning that one skilled in the art
would not have sought to expand Yoshioka' s capability to include handling
of multiple substrate sizes.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain Rejection I. Because Appellants
do not present any additional argument regarding Rejection II or III, we
sustain each those rejections for the same reasons discussed above.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended 35 C.F.R. § 1.136.
AFFIRMED
8