Ex Parte Tepman

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 31, 2003

08946920 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 31, 2003)

1 Claims 5, 6, 12 and 18 have been amended subsequent to
final rejection.
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 31
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte AVI TEPMAN
__________
Appeal No. 2002-0936
Application 08/946,920
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before COHEN, STAAB, and MCQUADE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Avi Tepman appeals from the final rejection (Paper No. 18)
of claims 1, 2 and 4 through 25, all of the claims pending in the
application.1
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to “a robot blade for transferring
[integrated circuit] substrates through a processing system while
reducing the idle time of the process chamber and the number of
Appeal No. 2002-0936
Application 09/946,920
2
strokes to effect substrate transfer” (specification, page 2).
Representative claims 1 and 11 read as follows:
1. An apparatus for transferring objects, comprising:
a robot having at least one actuator to drive at least one
arm and a blade mounted to the arm, the blade comprising an upper
platform having an upper object supporting surface and a lower
platform having a lower object supporting surface, the upper
object supporting surface being horizontally offset from the
lower object supporting surface and fixed relative to the lower
object supporting surface.
11. A method for transferring objects comprising:
a) providing a blade having at least an upper object
supporting surface horizontally offset from a lower object
supporting surface and fixed relative to the lower object
supporting surface;
b) positioning the upper object supporting surface to
receive a first object; and
c) positioning the lower object supporting surface to
deliver a second object.
THE PRIOR ART
The references relied on by the examiner to support the
final rejection are:
Nelson 1,948,592 Feb. 27, 1934
Araki 5,564,889 Oct. 15, 1996
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2 and 4 through 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter the appellant regards as the
invention.
Appeal No. 2002-0936
Application 09/946,920
2 In the final rejection, claims 11 and 12 also stood
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Nelson.
As the examiner has not restated this rejection in the answer, we
assume that it has been withdrawn (see Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ
180, 181 (Bd. App. 1957)).
3
Claims 1, 2, 5 through 12, 16 and 18 through 21 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Araki.
Claims 4, 13 through 15, 17 and 22 through 25 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Araki.
Claims 1, 2, 4 through 6, 10 and 25 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Nelson.
Attention is directed to the brief (Paper No. 24) and to the
final rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 18 and 25) for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner regarding
the merits of these rejections.2
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 1,
2 and 4 through 25
The examiner considers claims 1, 2 and 4 through 25 to be
indefinite because:
Re base claim[s] 1, 11, 16, 22 and 25, it is not
understood how the platforms are structurally
horizontally offset - are the platforms offset
laterally with respect to their major longitudinal
axes, offset longitudinally with respect to their major
axes or what; also, it is not understood as to what
portions of the first supporting surfaces are offset
from the second supporting surface; further, it is not
Appeal No. 2002-0936
Application 09/946,920
4
understood how the upper and lower platforms are
structurally connected in the absence of connecting
means therefore or whether they are integrally formed
and connected together. Moreover, while it is claimed
that the first object supporting surface is fixed
relative to the second object supporting surface, it is
not clear whether the first surface moves while the
second surface moves (and stays fixed relative to), or
whether the first and second surfaces are anchored or
what. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the first
and second surfaces are parallel to each other, skewed
relative to each other, perpendicular to each other or
what. Lastly, it is not clear what function is being
performed by the claimed first and second supporting
surfaces and in what structural environment they
operate. Re claims 5, 18 and 6, no structural means
has been set forth to bring about the retraction or
rotation. Re claim 11, it is not understood where
structurally the first surface receives the first
object and where the second surface delivers the second
object [answer, pages 3 and 4].
None of these concerns is well founded. The “horizontally
offset” limitations in independent claims 1, 11, 22 and 25, and
the corresponding “horizontally spaced” limitation in independent
claim 16, are clear on their face as well as when read, as they
are required to be, in light of the detailed explanation and
depiction thereof on page 10 in the specification and Figure 3 of
the drawings (see horizontal offset distance D2). In addition,
the appellants’ amendment of claims 5, 6 and 18 subsequent to
final rejection to recite “means” for retracting and/or rotating
obviates any purported ambiguity due to a lack of structure in
these claims. The rest of the examiner’s criticisms relate to
Appeal No. 2002-0936
Application 09/946,920
5
the breadth of the claims. The mere breadth of a claim, however,
does not equate to indefiniteness. In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689,
693, 169 USPQ 597, 600 (CCPA 1971).
In light of the foregoing, we shall not sustain the standing
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 1, 2 and 4
through 25.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 through
12, 16 and 18 through 21 as being anticipated by Araki
Araki discloses a semiconductor wafer treatment unit 12 (see
Figure 4) comprising a plurality of treatment sections 30, 32,
34, 36 and 38, and a transfer robot 40 for transferring wafers
into and out of the treatment sections. The robot 40 (see
Figures 5 and 6) includes a movable pedestal 44, a rotatable and
vertically adjustable shaft 46 projecting upwardly from the
pedestal, a driving block 48 on the upper end of the shaft, and
three horseshoe-shaped, wafer-supporting arms 52, 54 and 56
operatively associated with the driving block. As described by
Araki,
[e]ach arm 52, 54 or 56 can perform a horizontal
stroke by which it can move to and from a position
under a wafer placed in a treatment section. Further,
the driving block 48 can perform a vertical stroke
which covers the range from a position in which the
lowest arm 52 can start the transfer of a wafer, to a
position in which the uppermost arm 56 can start to
raise a wafer.
Appeal No. 2002-0936
Application 09/946,920
6
As is shown in FIG. 6, the arms 52, 54 and 56 are
connected to driving means, contained in the block 48,
via support frames 52a, 54a and 56a, respectively, and
can be operated independent of one another. The frame
52a of the arm 52 is inserted in the block 48 through
an elongated opening 52b formed in the upper plate of
the block. The frame 54a of the arm 54 is inserted in
the block 48 through an elongated opening (not shown)
formed in a substantial center portion of the left side
plate of the block, as is shown in FIGS. 5 and 6. The
frame 56a of the arm 56 is inserted in the block 48
through an elongated opening 56b formed in a lower
portion of the right side plate of the block, as is
shown in FIGS. 5 and 6. A rotary driving mechanism
consisting of a stepping motor and a ball screw
operable in synchronism therewith, a belt-driven slide
mechanism or the like is used as the driving mechanism
of the arms 52, 54 and 56 [column 5, lines 22 through
45].
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency,
each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The examiner’s rather brief analysis
as to how Araki discloses each and every element of claims 1, 2,
5 through 12, 16 and 18 through 21 appears on page 4 in the
answer.
As indicated above, independent claim 1 requires a blade
comprising an upper platform having an upper object supporting
surface and a lower platform having a lower object supporting
surface with the upper object supporting surface being
Appeal No. 2002-0936
Application 09/946,920
7
horizontally offset from and fixed relative to the lower object
supporting surface, and independent claim 11 requires a blade
comprising an upper object supporting surface horizontally offset
from and fixed relative to a lower object supporting surface.
Independent claim 16 contains similar limitations. According to
the examiner, Araki’s support frame 56a, arm 54 and arm 52
respectively constitute such a blade, upper platform/supporting
surface and lower platform/supporting surface. These findings
are clearly flawed, however, because Araki’s support frame 56a,
arm 54 and arm 52 are separate, distinct and independently
movable elements which cannot reasonably be construed as
embodying a blade of the sort recited in claims 1, 11 and 16.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection of claims 1, 11 and 16, and dependent claims
2, 5 through 10, 12 and 18 through 21 as being anticipated by
Araki.
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 4, 13 through 15,
17 and 22 through 25 as being unpatentable over Araki
Independent claims 22 and 25 contain blade limitations
similar to those recited in independent claims 1, 11 and 16. For
the reasons discussed above, Araki does not meet these
limitations. As Araki also would not have suggested an apparatus
or method encompassing such a blade, we shall not sustain the
Appeal No. 2002-0936
Application 09/946,920
8
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 22
and 25, and dependent claims 4, 13 through 15, 17, 23 and 24, as
being unpatentable over Araki.
IV. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 through 6,
10 and 25 as being anticipated by Nelson
Nelson discloses a cake knife/server. Figure 1 of the
reference shows a human hand manipulating this device to cut and
serve a piece of cake. In short, the examiner’s determination
that this drawing illustrates “a human wristed robot” (answer,
page 4) meeting all of the robot apparatus limitations in
independent claims 1 and 25 is completely without merit.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of independent claims 1 and 25, and dependent
claims 2, 4 through 6 and 10, as being anticipated by Nelson.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 2 and 4
through 25 is reversed.
Appeal No. 2002-0936
Application 09/946,920
9
REVERSED
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
)
) APPEALS AND
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
)
JOHN P. MCQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JPM/kis
Appeal No. 2002-0936
Application 09/946,920
10
APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.
2881 SCOTT BOULEVARD, M/S 2061
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050