Ex Parte Takahashi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2017

13742599 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/742,599 01/16/2013 Goro TAKAHASHI BPL0225US 9205
23413 7590 11/30/2017
TANTOR TOT RTTRN T T P
EXAMINER
20 Church Street BAE, GYOUNGHYUN
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2017 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GORO TAKAHASHI,
TAKANORI SAITO, WENLING WANG,
KOJI YOSHII, and TATSUYA YAMAGUCHI1
Appeal 2016-008221
Application 13/742,599
Technology Center 3700
Before KEN B. BARRETT, JAMES P. CALVE, and SEAN P. O’HANLON,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Office
Action rejecting claims 1—5. Appeal Br. 5. Claims 6—9 are withdrawn. Id.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Tokyo Electron Limited, the Appellant, is identified as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-008221
Application 13/742,599
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims relate to a heat treatment apparatus and controller that
restores a desired temperature without overshooting the desired temperature.
Spec. 1:12—32. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below.
1. A heat treatment apparatus comprising:
a processing chamber which accommodates a processing
object;
a heating unit which heats the processing object accommodated
in the processing chamber;
a temperature detecting unit which detects an internal
temperature of the processing chamber; and
a controller which is configured to: set a second setting
temperature that is the same as a temperature detected by the
temperature detecting unit when the temperature detected by the
temperature detecting unit falls below a predetermined first setting
temperature due to an external disturbance; control the heating unit so
that the temperature detected by the temperature detecting unit
becomes identical to a third setting temperature between the second
setting temperature and the first setting temperature; and control the
heating unit so that the temperature detected by the temperature
detecting unit becomes identical to the first setting temperature after
the temperature detected by the temperature detecting unit becomes
identical to the third setting temperature.
Appeal Br. 21 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nanno (US 2003/0121905 Al, pub. July 3, 2003) and
Scaramuzzo, Jr. (US 5,465,035, iss. Nov. 7, 1995) (“Scaramuzzo”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Nanno, Scaramuzzo, and Sugishita (US 2010/0124726 Al, pub. May
20, 2010).
2
Appeal 2016-008221
Application 13/742,599
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—3 and 5 Rejected Over
Nanno and Scaramuzzo
The Examiner finds that Nanno discloses a heat treatment apparatus as
recited in claim 1 including a controller that controls a detected temperature
to become identical to a first setting temperature if the detected temperature
is below a predetermined first setting temperature, but otherwise does not set
a second or a third setting temperature. Final Act. 4—5. The Examiner finds
that Scaramuzzo discloses a controller that uses three unit step commands of
+3 Amperes (“A”), -3 A, and 0 A in Figure 16, where +3 A is a first setting
temperature, -3 A is a second setting temperature, and 0 A is a third setting
temperature that is between the second setting temperature (-3 A) and first
setting temperature (+3 A), as claimed. Id. at 5—6; Ans. 14.
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to replace
Nanno’s SP average input command in Fig. 10A with Scaramuzzo’s open
loop input command generator in Fig. 8 “to provide any desired profile of
command with respect to time.” Final Act. 6. The Examiner also finds that
Nanno’s temperature regulator can generate any shape input function using
the pulses in Figs. 35A—35D, but Nanno does not teach a command function
with two unit steps and a linear straight transition therebetween; however,
Scaramuzzo teaches three unit step commands of +3 A, -3 A, and 0 A, and it
would have been obvious to apply such a multi-step function to Nanno’s unit
step function to adjust Nanno’s control gains “to achieve the desired closed
loop control system response within the error bound from the desired input
command and satisfy the required gain margin and phase margin for the
stability of the closed loop control system during operation.” Ans. 14.
3
Appeal 2016-008221
Application 13/742,599
Appellant argues that Nanno discloses “performing the PID control,”
but Nanno does not disclose the claimed first, second, and third temperature
settings. Appeal Br. 11—14; Reply Br. 4. Appellant argues that Nanno’s
multiple “n” inputs shown in Figures 1 and 3 are for “n” heaters and “n”
temperature sensors (at different locations), and this teaching is irrelevant to
the claimed first, second, and third setting temperatures. Reply Br. 4.
These arguments are not persuasive because the Examiner relies on
Nanno to teach the claimed apparatus and controller that sets a first setting
temperature. The Examiner relies on Scaramuzzo to teach a controller that
sets second and third setting temperatures as discussed above. Final Act. 4—
6. Appellant’s arguments amount to individual attacks on the references
where the Examiner relies on Scaramuzzo (not Nanno) to teach a controller
that sets second and third setting temperatures. Id. at 5—6.
Next, Appellant argues that “FIG. 16 of Scaramuzzo is not the case of
preventing the overshooting of the current, and the disclosure of Scaramuzzo
is merely deliberately using so-called ‘bang-bang-input’ in order to make the
square wave signal.” Appeal Br. 18. Appellant also argues that Scaramuzzo
applies a square wave drive signal to a motor as a “bang-bang” function to
achieve swift motion of the actuator and sharp changes in the coil current.
Id. at 17 (citing Scaramuzzo, 1:29—33, 17:21—26); Reply Br 12. Appellant
further argues that Scaramuzzo does not control the current in a three-step
command process, as claimed, to reach a target current value after aiming at
a target control value, but instead repeats the square wave input over and
over so that “the current actually reaches the target current value almost in
real time” without pause as it changes from +3 A to -3 A in Figure 16. It
does not “become identical” to a third setting as claimed. Reply Br. 8, 11.
4
Appeal 2016-008221
Application 13/742,599
The Examiner’s finding that Scaramuzzo teaches a controller that sets
a second setting temperature and controls a heating unit or even a current to
become identical to a third setting temperature before controlling a heating
unit to become identical to a first setting temperature is not supported by a
preponderance of evidence. The Examiner’s finding that Scaramuzzo’s
square wave bang-bang input passes through three different current values
(+3 A, 0 A, -3 A) as a function of time does not explain how Scaramuzzo’s
controller detects a value, sets it as a second setting value, and controls the
motor or current to a third setting value that is between the second setting
value and the original first setting value. Appeal Br. 15—17. Nor has the
Examiner explained how Scaramuzzo controls a motor or current to become
identical to a third setting value before controlling it to become identical to
the original first setting value, as claimed. Id. at 17; Final Act. 5—6; Ans. 15.
As Appellant points out (Reply Br. 12), Scaramuzzo repeats a square
wave over and over so it moves from -3 A, which the Examiner equates to
the second setting temperature (Final Act. 5), to +3 A, which the Examiner
equates to the first setting temperature (id. at 6), in real time in Figure 16.
Reply Br. 11. Thus, this input bang-bang wave occurs as a function of time
without controlling the actual current to move to +3 A, which is the alleged
first setting temperature. Id. Instead, the bang-bang square wave input
results in the current moving from +3 A to -3 A without any control function
being exercised to transition between these two current values, which change
with time. Scaramuzzo, 17:21—35, 14:12—25, see Fig. 16. Thus, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 1—3 and 5.
5
Appeal 2016-008221
Application 13/742,599
Claim 4 Rejected Over
Nanno, Scaramuzzo, and Sugishita
The Examiner relies on Sugishita to teach features of claim 4 and not
to overcome any deficiencies of Nanno and Scaramuzzo for claim 1 from
which claim 4 depends. Final Act. 7—9; Appeal Br. 20. Because Sugishita
does not cure deficiencies of Nanno and Scaramuzzo as to claim 1, we do
not sustain the rejection of claim 4.
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1—5.
REVERSED
6