Ex Parte Stewart

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 8, 2009

10133073 (B.P.A.I. May. 8, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte EDWARD C. STEWART
____________________

Appeal 2008-003459
Application 10/133,0731
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: October 14, 2009
____________________

Before LANCE LEONARY BARRY, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
JAY P. LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING

1 Application filed April 26, 2002. The real party in interest is Advanced
Micro Devices (AMD), Inc.
Appeal 2008-003459
Application 10/133,073

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant requests a rehearing from the Decision on Appeal (Opinion)
mailed May 8, 2009, affirming the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 7, 17, 18, 23, 24, and 32 over the patents to Barker and Nicholson.
Appellant’s invention relates to a device for measuring the
performance of semiconductor manufacturing tools and routing
semiconductor wafers for processing based on the performance. (See
Abstract.) In the words of Appellant:
Embodiments of the present invention provide for processing
semiconductor wafers 105 using a plurality of processing tools
and acquiring data relating to the processed semiconductor
wafers 105, in order to determine an efficient
scheduling/routing of semiconductor wafers 105 to be
processed.

(App. Br. 3, middle).

ANALYSIS
Appellant requests reconsideration of the affirmance of the rejections
of claims 7, 17, 18, 23, 24, and 32 for being rendered obvious over Barker
and Nicholson in the Decision on Appeal mailed May 8, 2009 (Req. Reh’g
2, top). Appellant’s arguments2 are first focused on the limitation in claim
17 reading: “a central fault detection unit operatively coupled to said process

2 Appellant is not entitled to raise new arguments on rehearing. (See Optivus
Technology, Inc. v. Ion Beam Applications S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (argument raised for the first time after the opening Brief has been
filed that could have been raised in the opening Brief is waived)). However,
in the interest of judicial economy, we respond.
2
Appeal 2008-003459
Application 10/133,073

controller, said central fault detection unit to perform fault detection relating
to said semiconductor wafers to acquire fault data.”
Appellant contends that the reference Nicholson does not disclose the
claimed central fault detection unit because the devices 110, 112, 114, and
116 “are not within the ‘fab 103,’ but are outside the ‘fab 130’” and “are not
even located within reasonable proximity of each other in the system 100.”
(Req. Reh’g 3, middle). With these contentions we take issue.
Claim 17 does not require that any part of the claimed central fault
detection unit be located within or outside a fab, as argued by Appellant.
Further, claim 17 does not restrict any part of the claimed central fault
detection unit to “within [a] reasonable proximity . . . in the system.” Claim
17 simply states “a central fault detection unit operatively coupled to said
process controller.” In light of the lack of restrictions on the location of any
part of the central fault detection unit as claimed, we find that Appellant is
arguing claim limitations that are not commensurate with the scope of the
claimed invention. Accordingly, we find unconvincing Appellant’s
arguments, which merely point out limitations not claimed.
Appellant further contends that the motivation for combining Barker
and Nicholson has not been addressed. (Req. Reh’g 4, bottom). We
disagree, as the Examiner articulated a reason having a rational
underpinning, see KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)), for combining
Barker and Nicholson. (See Ans. 6, bottom to 7, top; Ans. 19, bottom.)
Therefore, Appellant has not identified any points misapprehended or
overlooked by the Board in our decision as required by 37 C.F.R. § 41.52.
3
Appeal 2008-003459
Application 10/133,073

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the Opinion mailed
May 8, 2009, will be maintained.
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).

REHEARING DENIED

peb

WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON
10333 RICHMOND, SUITE 1000
HOUSTON, TX 77042
4