Ex Parte Tanimura et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 15, 2014

11405421 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte HIDENOBU TANIMURA, MINORU SORAOKA,
SHINJI YOKOYAMA, and NORIYOSHI TOYODA
____________________

Appeal 2012-010596
Application 11/405,421
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
JAMES J. MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.

MAYBERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 3–
5 and 7. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a load port. Claim 3, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
3. A load port provided with a table arranged on a side of a
front wall of an atmospheric transfer unit for transferring a
piece of material under processing and adapted to mount
Appeal 2012-010596
Application 11/405,421
2
thereon a container with said piece of material received therein,
a plate for isolating an interior of said atmospheric transfer unit
from an exterior of said atmospheric transfer unit, an opening
formed in said plate to permit taking said piece of material out
of said container or placing said piece of material in said
container, and an accommodation chamber arranged on a side
of said front wall of said atmospheric transfer unit, the
accommodation chamber being arranged under the table, a
drive unit accommodated in said accommodation chamber that
drives a door that opens or closes said opening of said plate,
and slots, along which a carrier for driving said door and a
mapping unit is movable, formed between said accommodation
chamber and said atmospheric transfer unit, comprising:
an exhaust duct arranged on a rear side of said plate,
which duct has a wall by which said slots are covered and that
is provided thereon within said atmospheric transfer unit so as
to extend upwards to the lower extremity of said opening
formed in said plate, and
a fan arranged in a lower extremity of said exhaust duct;
wherein the accommodation chamber and an interior of
the exhaust duct are in communication with each other via the
slots so that, by said exhaust duct and said fan, an internal
atmosphere of said atmospheric transfer unit is led to flow into
the exhaust duct and an internal atmosphere of said
accommodation chamber can flow into said exhaust duct
through said slots, and each atmosphere flows vertically
through said interior of said exhaust duct, and can be exhausted
to said exterior of said atmospheric transfer unit.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Halsey
Tokunaga
Chen
US 6,543,981 B1
US 6,817,822 B2
US 6,896,470 B1
Apr. 8, 2003
Nov. 16, 2004
May 24, 2005
Perrault US 2003/0111071 A1 June 19, 2003
Appeal 2012-010596
Application 11/405,421
3

REJECTIONS
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chen and Tokunaga. Ans. 4.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chen, Tokunaga, and Perrault. Id. at 6.
Claims 3, 4, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chen and Halsey. Id.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chen, Halsey, and Perrault. Id. at 7.

ANALYSIS
Obviousness Rejection over Chen and Halsey
Claim 3
Claim 3 requires, in part, “a drive unit accommodated in said
accommodation chamber that drives a door that opens or closes said opening
of said plate, and slots, along which a carrier for driving said door and a
mapping unit is movable.” Br. 10, Claims App. Claim 3 also requires “an
exhaust duct arranged on a rear side of said plate, which duct has a wall by
which said slots are covered.” Id. The Examiner finds that much of the
subject matter of claim 3 is disclosed by Chen, including “a drive unit
accommodated in said accommodation chamber that drives a door that opens
or closes said opening of said plate, and slots, along which a carrier for
driving said door and a mapping unit is movable.” See Ans. 6–7. The
Examiner further finds that Halsey discloses “a wall (134) forming a duct
that extends from the base of the drive to the bottom of said port opening.”
Id. at 7. The Examiner concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious to one
Appeal 2012-010596
Application 11/405,421
4
of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of invention to provide the device
taught by [Chen] with a duct system as taught by [Halsey] in order to purge
the area around the drive of impurities prior to transfer of substrates.” Id.
Appellants argue that “[t]he [Halsey] cowl 134 . . . has an inlet near an
aperture 144, and does not cover slots as claim 3 requires.” Br. 7.
Appellants further argue that “[t]he [Halsey] apparatus, moreover, does not
have slots along which a carrier for driving a port door and a mapping unit is
movable as claim 3 requires.” Id. We find Appellants’ arguments
unpersuasive as they ignore the combination proposed by the Examiner in
the obviousness rejection and, instead, attack Halsey individually.
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As the Examiner makes clear, “[Halsey] teaches a port plate with a
duct on the rear thereof with and exhaust fan at a bottom to create a negative
pressure within the duct.” Ans. 10. That is, Halsey is used solely for its
teaching of an exhaust duct and fan unit—not for the teaching of an exhaust
duct positioned over slots for a drive unit. The Examiner relies on Chen for
the other subject matter of claim 3, including the slots for the drive unit. Id.
As the Examiner proposes, the apparatus of Chen would be modified to
include an exhaust duct as taught by Halsey over Chen’s slots (items 111,
112). See id. at 7, 10.
Appellants further argue that Halsey’s “disclosure would suggest
nothing beyond obtaining an air duct arranged near the port door provided
for transmitting and receiving wafers,” because “[Halsey’s] apparatus has no
slots in the locations and having the effects required by claim 3.” Br. 8. We
find this argument unpersuasive, as it limits Halsey to its disclosed
Appeal 2012-010596
Application 11/405,421
5
invention, rather than what Halsey would teach or suggest to one of ordinary
skill in the art. “[A] reference must be considered not only for what it
expressly teaches, but also for what it fairly suggests.” In re Bell, 991 F. 2d
781, 785 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1179
(CCPA 1979)); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“[A]
person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.”). The Examiner correctly finds that Halsey’s disclosure of an
exhaust duct and fan for providing a clean environment associated with
semiconductor substrate processing equipment would have suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art that Chen’s apparatus could be modified to
provide an exhaust duct over Chen’s slots 111, 112. See Ans. 10.
For the reasons above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Chen and Halsey. As Appellants do not separately argue the rejection of
dependent claims 4 and 7, which directly depend from claim 3, we also
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Chen and Halsey. See Br. 8.
Further, Appellants do not separately argue the rejection of dependent
claim 5, which directly depends from claim 3. See id. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chen, Halsey, and Perrault.

Obviousness Rejection over Chen and Tokunaga
Claims 3–5
Appellants separately argue against the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Chen and Tokunaga. Br. 4–6. Nothing in these arguments affects our
Appeal 2012-010596
Application 11/405,421
6
decision sustaining the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen and Halsey, as analyzed
above. As we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of all claims under appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen and Halsey or, as
to claim 5, over Chen, Halsey, and Perrault, we do not address the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 3–5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chen and Tokunaga. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1) (“The
affirmance of the rejection of a claim on any of the grounds specified
constitutes a general affirmance of the decision of the examiner on that
claim . . . .”).

DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims
3–5 and 7.

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) (2009).

AFFIRMED

tkl