Ex Parte White et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 29, 2007

09982406 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 29, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was 1
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board. 2
3
4
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 5
_____________ 6
7
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 8
AND INTERFERENCES 9
_____________ 10
11
Ex parte JOHN M. WHITE and AKIHIRO HOSOKAWA 12
_____________ 13
14
Appeal No. 2006-2725 15
Application No. 09/982,406 16
Technology Center 3600 17
______________ 18
19
Decided: June 29, 2007 20
_______________ 21
22
Before TERRY J. OWENS, JENNIFER D. BAHR, and STUART S. LEVY, 23
Administrative Patent Judges. 24
25
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. 26
27
28
DECISION ON APPEAL 29
The Appellants appeal from a rejection of claims 8, 14, 15, 17-21 and 47-52, 30
which are all of the pending claims. 31
THE INVENTION 32
The Appellants claim an apparatus for supporting a substrate in a chamber. 33
Claim 8 is illustrative: 34
35
Appeal 2006-2725
Application 09/982,406

2

8. An apparatus for supporting a substrate, comprising: 1
a chamber body having at least one substrate access port; 2
at least one support member disposed in the chamber body; 3
at least one socket disposed in the support member and having a ball 4
support surface and a formed end; and 5
a ball rotatably disposed on the ball support surface and retained in the 6
socket by the formed end, the ball adapted to contact and support the 7
substrate in a spaced-apart relation to the support member. 8
9
THE REFERENCES 10
Hansson US 4,621,936 Nov. 11, 1986 11
Okayama (as translated) JP 2-121347 May 9, 1990 12
Toshio1 (as translated) JP 2000-353737 Dec. 19, 2000 13
Young US 6,677,594 B1 Jan. 13, 2004 14
15
THE REJECTIONS 16
The following rejections are before us on appeal:2 claims 8 and 15 under 17
35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Toshio; claims 14, 47 and 51 under 18
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Toshio in view of Young and Hanson; claims 8, 19
15, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined disclosures of 20
Okayama and Young; and claims 14, 47 and 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious 21
over the combined disclosures of Okayama, Young and Hansson. 22

1The Examiner and the Appellants refer to this reference as “Toshio,” the
inventor’s first name. For consistency, we likewise do so.
2 The Appellants state that nine additional rejections involving only dependent
claims (17-21, 48, 49, 50 and 52), all but one of the additional rejections relying
upon US 5,955,858 to Kroeker or US 4,706,793 to Masciarelli, are not under
review on appeal (Br. 8; Reply Br. 3). The Appellants state that those claims are
patentable if the independent claim (8 or 47) from which they depend is patentable
(Reply Br. 3).
Appeal 2006-2725
Application 09/982,406

3

OPINION 1
We affirm the aforementioned rejections. The Appellants do not separately 2
argue dependent claims 14, 15, 17-19, and 51 (Br. 9-12). We therefore limit our 3
discussion to independent claims 8 and 47. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004). 4
5
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) over Toshio and 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Toshio in view of Young and Hanson 7
8
Toshio discloses a substrate aligning device for transporting a substrate from 9
a substrate processing part to another processing part (Toshio, ¶ 0007). The device 10
includes a substrate supporting arm (3) having therein a supporting pin (11) that 11
supports a rolling ball (9) (Toshio, ¶ 0019; fig. 3). The upper end of the rolling 12
ball protrudes from a top plate (10) bolted onto the substrate supporting arm 13
(Toshio, ¶ 0020; fig. 3). “In order to have the function of preventing fall of rolling 14
ball (9) and to fix the position of ball supporting pin (11), a hole is formed through 15
it [the top plate] in a size that ensures that rolling ball (9) cannot be pulled from the 16
upper end surface of top plate (10)” (Toshio, ¶ 0020).3 17
The Appellants argue that Toshio lacks a formed end to retain the ball in the 18
socket and that “[a]dhesion of the ball 9 to the substrate 1 in Toshio would lift the 19
ball 9 out of the top plate 10 based on Figures 3 and 4 in Toshio” (Br. 9). That 20
lifting out would not occur because the hole in Toshio’s top plate is sized such that 21
the rolling ball cannot be pulled from the top plate’s upper surface (¶ 0020). 22
Toshio therefore has a formed end (the hole in the top plate) to retain the ball 9 in 23
the socket. 24

3 We need not address Young and Hansson.
Appeal 2006-2725
Application 09/982,406

4

The Appellants argue that Toshio’s top plate is not part of a socket but, 1
rather, is a separate piece (Reply Br. 4). The Appellant indicates that the socket’s 2
formed end can be a retaining ring (606) disposed in a sidewall of the socket 3
(Spec. 0047; fig. 6C). Hence, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “at least 4
one socket … having a … formed end” in claim 8, in view of the Appellants’ 5
Specification, see In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 6
1989); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983), 7
encompasses a socket and its formed end that are separate, joined pieces. 8
Consequently, the Appellant’s claim term “formed end” encompasses Toshio’s top 9
plate. 10
The Appellants argue that Toshio does not disclose that the substrate support 11
is in a chamber body (Reply Br. 4). Toshio’s disclosures that the apparatus is for 12
aligning substrates used in making color filters for liquid crystal display elements 13
and that even dirt from scratches caused by sliding between a substrate and its 14
support is unacceptable (Toshio, ¶¶ 0001, 0004-0005) would have indicated to one 15
of ordinary skill in the art that the support member is in a chamber to provide the 16
required cleanliness. 17
The Appellant argues that the applied references do not disclose or suggest a 18
ball having a surface roughness of 4 microinches or less as required by the 19
Appellants’ claim 47 (Br. 10). Toshio’s disclosure that sliding between the 20
substrate and the ball can form scratches or dirt that cause poor product quality 21
(Toshio, ¶¶ 0004, 0005, 0017, 0018) would have led one of ordinary skill in the art 22
to make the surface of the ball as smooth as reasonably possible, such as 4 23
microinches or less surface roughness, to minimize scratches and dirt formation 24
due to sliding. 25
Appeal 2006-2725
Application 09/982,406

5

For the above reasons we are not convinced of reversible error in the 1
rejections over Toshio and over Toshio in view of Young and Hanson. 2
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined disclosures of Okayama and 3
Young, and over the combined disclosures of Okayama, Young, and Hansson. 4
Okayama discloses a device for positioning a semiconductor wafer in a 5
particular direction before supplying it to a process such as inspection or etching 6
(Okayama 2-3). The device includes a holder (10) having ball bearings (11) 7
therein that support a rotatable ball (7) (Okayama 6). The holder is shown as 8
having a lip that holds the rotatable ball in the holder (fig. 3(a)). 9
The Appellants argue that the applied references do not teach, show or 10
suggest all of the limitations of claim 8 (Br. 10-12), but the Appellants do not 11
provide a substantive argument as to what the Appellants consider the references to 12
be lacking. 13
The Appellants argue that the applied references do not teach, show, or 14
suggest a ball with a surface roughness of 4 micro-inches or less (Br. 11-12). 15
Okayama’s disclosure that the coefficient of friction between the balls and the 16
wafer is to be low to prevent dust generation (Okayama 5, 8-9) would have led one 17
of ordinary skill in the art to make the ball surface roughness as low as reasonably 18
possible, such as 4 micro-inches or less, to avoid dust generation. 19
We therefore are not convinced of reversible error in the rejections over the 20
combined disclosures of Okayama and Young and over the combined disclosures 21
of Okayama, Young, and Hansson. 22
Appeal 2006-2725
Application 09/982,406

6

DECISION 1
The rejections of claims 8 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) over Toshio, 2
claims 14, 47, and 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Toshio in view of Young and 3
Hanson, claims 8, 15, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined 4
disclosures of Okayama and Young, and claims 14, 47, and 51 under 5
35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined disclosures of Okayama, Young and Hansson 6
are affirmed. 7
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this 8
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(2006). 9
AFFIRMED 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
hh 22
23
24
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP 25
3040 POST OAK BOULEVARD, SUITE 1500 26
HOUSTON, TX 77056 27
28