Ex Parte Wakabayashi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 28, 2013

11362774 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SHINJI WAKABAYASHI
____________

Appeal 2011-009476
Application 11/362,774
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, WILLIAM A. CAPP and JILL D. HILL,
Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-009476
Application 11/362,774

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Shinju Wakabayashi (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) of the Examiner’s non-final rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9-11.1
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a processing apparatus in which a
wind velocity measuring sensor is physically mounted on a transfer
mechanism. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A processing apparatus comprising:

a mounting unit for mounting a transport container
for accommodating therein a plurality of
substrates;

a processing unit for performing a process on a
substrate;

a transfer unit having a transfer mechanism therein
for transferring the substrate between the transport
container mounted on the mounting unit and the
processing unit;

1 Appellant filed an Amendment Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111 on September 30,
2010, contemporaneously with the filing of the Appeal Brief. In that
Amendment, Appellant attempted to cancel claims 4, 8 and 12. While the
Examiner did not expressly acknowledge that the Amendment was entered
and the claims were canceled, the ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) was changed from a rejection of claims 1-12 in the non-final
rejection to a rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9-11 in the Answer. Compare,
Non-final Official Action 2-3, with Answer 4. As such, it appears that the
Examiner regarded the Amendment as having been entered and claims 4, 8
and 12 canceled.
Appeal 2011-009476
Application 11/362,774

3

a clean air supply unit for supplying a clean air
into the transfer unit, wherein the transfer
mechanism is provided with a wind velocity
measuring unit for measuring a wind velocity of
the clean air in the transfer unit, said wind velocity
measuring unit including a wind velocity
measuring sensor physically mounted on the
transfer mechanism; and

a controller configured to control the processing
apparatus such that the wind velocity measuring
sensor is moved to different areas of the transfer
unit by the transfer mechanism and collects wind
velocity measurement data at said different areas.

THE REJECTIONS
Appellant appeals from the following rejections:
(i) claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory
subject matter; and
(ii) claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Meulen (US 2002/0192057 A1, published Dec. 19, 2002)
in view of Hunter (US 2003/0209097 A1, published Nov. 13, 2003).

ANALYSIS
Claim 3--35 U.S.C. § 101
As Appellant points out (Reply Br. 3), the position taken by the
Examiner in this rejection appears to be directed to language appearing in
claim 4 (whether canceled or not), directed to a “measurement data
collecting module,” which language is not found anywhere in claim 3. See
Appeal 2011-009476
Application 11/362,774

4
Ans. 3. As such, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 3 as being directed
to non-statutory subject matter.

Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9-11--Obviousness-- Meulen/Hunter
Appellant presents essentially the same arguments for patentability for
independent claims 1, 2 and 3, and does not separately argue dependent
claims 5-7. Appeal Br. 8-10, Reply Br. 4-9. Appellant presents further
arguments for dependent claims 9-11. Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 9-10.
The Examiner found that Meulen disclosed the subject matter of
independent claims 1-3, with the exception of physically mounting its wind
velocity measuring sensor on its transfer mechanism. Ans. 6. The Examiner
cited to the disclosure of a sensor on a transfer mechanism in Hunter, and
concluded that it would have been obvious to modify the Meulen system
such that the wind velocity measuring sensor would be physically mounted
on the transfer mechanism, so as to obtain wind velocity data from the area
in the immediate vicinity of the wafer. Id. The Examiner also noted that
Meulen, in disclosing that a plurality of wind velocity sensors could be
provided, contemplated the desirability of sensing the wind velocity at
different areas of the processing chamber. Ans. 7; Meulen, p. 2, para.
[0014].
Appellant principally argues that the sensor on the transfer mechanism
in Hunter is not a wind velocity sensor, but is instead employed to sense the
inclination, acceleration and horizontal angle of the transfer mechanism.
Appeal Br. 8-9. Appellant further notes that the wind velocity sensor in
Meulen is disclosed as being at a stationary point to measure overall air flow
in the chamber, is unconcerned with the air velocity in a variety of points in
Appeal 2011-009476
Application 11/362,774

5
the chamber, and is unconcerned with the air velocity in the immediate
vicinity of the wafer. Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 4-9. Appellant additionally
argues that the Examiner has not explained why data collected from a wind
velocity sensor disposed on a wafer transfer mechanism would be more
relevant than data collected from the location specifically shown in Meulen.
Reply Br. 4.
Appellant’s argument that Meulen discloses obtaining wind velocity
data from only a single point within the processing chamber is contrary to
the disclosure in Meulen that more than one airflow velocity sensor could be
used. Meulen, p. 2, para. [0014]. As such, Meulen contemplates that it
could or would be beneficial to have wind velocity data from more than a
single point. Meulen further discloses that airflow velocity sensors may be
used to control the airflow from the filter and fan unit, and that the filter and
fan unit is provided to direct an airflow in a vertical direction from a top of
the isolation chamber enclosure toward the floor to remove particles
suspended in the interior of the isolation chamber. The absence of such
impurities or particles in the area immediately adjacent the position of the
wafer in the isolation chamber would be of particular significance, and thus
adequate airflow in this region would be of particular relevance.
Furthermore, the Hunter disclosure is not limited to the sensor on the
transfer unit being an accelerometer/inclinometer/compass. Hunter
expressly contemplates that other configurations of sensor devices or active
probes may be coupled to the transfer mechanism in that device. Hunter, pp.
5-6, paras. [0042]-[0046]. Of particular significance is the disclosure of
employing a temperature probe including temperature sensors, which are
used to map thermal characteristics of an environment, in order to develop or
Appeal 2011-009476
Application 11/362,774

6
validate basic temperature control schemes within the system or individual
process chambers. Hunter, p. 5, para. [0044]. Persons of ordinary skill in
the art would recognize that the similar placement of a wind velocity sensor
or sensors as disclosed in Meulen on its transfer mechanism would allow for
wind velocity data to be obtained from a plurality of locations in order to
either map the airflow patterns, or to develop or validate an airflow control
scheme, to effectively control the air flow used to remove particulate matter
from the chamber.
Appellant’s arguments thus fail to apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s position. The rejection of claims 1-3, and of claims 5-7
depending therefrom and not separately argued, as being unpatentable over
Meulen and Hunter is sustained.
Appellant separately argues that claims 9-11 require that the wind
velocity measuring sensor be provided at the leading end of the transfer arm,
and that the combined teachings of Meulen and Hunter would not result in
such a structure. Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 9-10. In particular, Appellant
argues that the sensor in Hunter is not disposed on a leading end of a transfer
arm. Id. Appellant then essentially repeats several of the arguments
advanced with respect to claims 1-3.
We are not apprised of error in the rejection of these claims in that the
Examiner does not specifically rely on the particular position on the transfer
mechanism at which the sensor is located, and instead notes that Meulen
discloses that the transfer mechanism includes a transfer arm having a
leading end having a pick for supporting a substrate. The Examiner’s
position that obtaining data from the immediate vicinity of the wafer infers
Appeal 2011-009476
Application 11/362,774

7
that the proposed modification to Meulen would result in placement of a
wind velocity sensor at the leading end that supports the substrate.
The rejection of claims 9-11 as being unpatentable over Meulen and
Hunter is sustained.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
is reversed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9-11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
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).

AFFIRMED

mls