Ex Parte Wu

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 25, 2009

10891406 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 25, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KUNG CHRIS WU
____________

Appeal 2009-002600
Application 10/891,406
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: September 25, 2009
____________

Before WILLIAM F. PATE III, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
KEN B. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

WILLIAM F. PATE III, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 3, 5 and 7-9.
These are the only claims remaining in the application. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6.
The claimed invention is directed to an end effector for use in moving
Appeal 2009-002600
Application 10/891,406

2
a reticle to and in a photolithography tool. The end effector can also be used
on a pod opener.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. An end effector adapted for attachment to a distal
end of an arm that is included in a pod opener, the pod opener
being adapted for receiving, opening and closing a pod which
carries a reticle on a base thereof, the pod opener's arm being
moveable with respect to the pod's base when the base is
received by the pod opener, the end effector comprising:
a gripper-support bar which is securable to the distal end
of the pod opener's arm for rotation with respect to the arm
about an axis which is substantially perpendicular to the
gripper-support bar;
a pair of gripper arms which respectively depend from
opposite ends of the gripper-support bar and are moveable with
respect to the gripper-support bar inward toward and outward
from the axis about which the gripper-support bar is rotatable;
and a pair of U-shaped reticle-side grippers, each of the
reticle-side grippers being located at nadirs respectively of each
of the gripper arms, movement of the gripper arms inward
toward the axis about which the gripper-support bar is rotatable
effecting engagement between the reticle-side grippers and
opposite sides of a reticle supported above a base of a pod
received into the pod opener, and movement of the gripper arms
outward from the axis about which the gripper-support bar is
rotatable effecting disengagement of a reticle from the reticle-
side grippers, said U-shaped reticle-side grippers adapting the
end effector for gripping a reticle near an edge thereof;
whereby the end effector adapts the pod opener for:
a. gripping with the reticle-side grippers a reticle
supported above a base of a pod received into the pod
Appeal 2009-002600
Application 10/891,406

3
opener;

b. transferring a reticle gripped by the reticle-side
grippers between:
i. the base of the pod; and

ii. an adjacent integrated circuit (“IC”)
photolithography tool; and
c. reorienting a reticle gripped near an edge
thereof by the reticle-side grippers with respect to
the pod opener's arm by rotating the gripper-
support bar with respect to the pod
opener's arm while transferring the reticle between
the base of a pod and the adjacent IC
photolithography tool, the gripping of a reticle near
an edge thereof further increasing
displacement of a reticle to exceed that provided
solely by movement of the pod opener's arm.
REFERENCES
The references of record relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Pollock US 5,421,889 Jun. 6, 1995
Espy US 4,042,122 Aug. 16, 1977

REJECTIONS
Claims 1and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Espy in view of Pollock.
Claims 3, 5, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Appellant’s admitted prior art in view of Pollock and
Espy.
Appeal 2009-002600
Application 10/891,406

4
ISSUES
Appellant argues that the Examiner has failed to give weight to the
functional language in Appellant’s claims on appeal. Appellant further
argues that the end effector of Espy is unable to perform the function of
further increasing displacement of a reticle to exceed that provided solely by
the pod opener’s arm. Appellant also argues that the grippers of Pollock,
operated as they are by a double scissors mechanism, does not teach the use
of a single gripper near an edge of a reticle. Finally, Appellant argues that
the combined teachings of Espy and Pollock do not render obvious the
reticle corner grippers being rotatable about an axis which is substantial
colinear with the reticle corner grippers.
Accordingly, the issues for our consideration on appeal are: whether
the Examiner improperly failed to give weight to Appellant’s functional
language; whether the combined teachings of Espy and Pollock render
obvious an effector that can displace a reticle further than a standard effector
due to gripping the reticle at the edge of the reticle plate; whether the
scissor-like mechanism of Pollock would teach the use of scissor-like
grippers that can be used to grip the edge of the plate; and whether the
combined teachings of Espy and Pollock would have rendered obvious the
gripping of the corner of a reticle plate as claimed by Appellant.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Espy teaches an end effector of general utility. Col. 1, ll. 7-10. The
end effector is adapted for attachment to the distal end of an arm 22,
24 and has a gripper support bar 14 having gripper arms 30 and a pair
of U-shaped reticle side gripper which the Examiner indicates are
Appeal 2009-002600
Application 10/891,406

5
formed by pin 34 and base 78. See col. 2, ll. 26-36 and ll. 41-47. The
gripper support bar is mounted for rotation about axis 18. Id. Espy
suggests that many different configurations of fingers suited to
various tasks and objects to be gripped may be substituted on the
readably detachable pins 34. Id. Finally, Espy shows an axis 66 in
each gripper means by which the grippers are rotatable. See col. 3, ll.
30-39.
2. Pollock discloses an end effector or article handler which grips a
reticle-like plate 21. Flipping of the plate is envisioned by Pollock to
prevent debris from settling on the top side of the plate. To this end,
Pollock provides U-shaped gripper 52 which grip the plate and rotate
the plate about the flip axis 46. See col. 9, ll. 26-33. See also col. 9,
ll. 52-58.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3)
the level of skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary
considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See
also KSR, 550 U.S. at 406-407 (“While the sequence of these questions
Appeal 2009-002600
Application 10/891,406

6
might be reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to
define the inquiry that controls.”).
“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be
physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.” In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The relevant inquiry is
whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of
ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those
references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). “Combining
the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their
specific structures.” In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973).

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner has refused to give weight to the
functional language in Appellant’s claims. Indeed, Appellant’s claims are
replete with functional language. We are in agreement with Appellant that
functional language can and often does distinguish claimed subject matter
from the prior art. However, in the case of Appellant’s claims on appeal,
and taking claim 1 as an example, we note that the claim is expressed in
“adapted to” language. Thus, for example, in the preamble of claim 1, the
end effector is merely adapted to be attached to the distal end of the arm of
the pod opener. Therefore, it is apparent that the pod opener is not
positively claimed. By the same token, the end effector merely adapts the
pod opener for the function given in sub-clauses a, b, and c at the end of the
claim. As we construe this “adapted to” limitation, the end effector merely
fits the pod opener for performing this function. Moreover, the clause in
section c, which Appellant argues for patentability, merely states that the
Appeal 2009-002600
Application 10/891,406

7
reticle will extend or be displaced further when the gripper grips the reticle
near an edge. We are of the view that if Espy is used to grasp a reticle at an
edge, then it would satisfy the limitation of extra displacement.
Accordingly, we are in agreement with the Examiner that even if the
functional language of claims 1 and 3 is given weight, Espy is capable of
performing the claimed function.
Turning to an application of the prior art to claim 1, we note that Espy
discloses a gripper support bar, a pair of grippers and a pair of U-shaped
reticle side grippers, which, as noted above, are capable of performing the
function claimed in the claim. See Fact 1. Therefore, we believe Espy
renders the claimed subject matter unpatentable with or without the U-
shaped gripper members of Pollock. Likewise, with respect to claim 3,
when the end effector of Espy is used on a pod arm as disclosed in
Appellant’s admitted prior art, we are of the view that Espy has the structure
and is capable of performing the function of the claimed subject matter.
With respect to claims 7, 8 and 9, we are in agreement with the
Appellant that the grippers 52 of Pollock are not adapted to engage the
corner of a reticle, inasmuch as they are configured in pairs. As such, they
are designed to grip the side of a plate and not a corner. Thus, while Pollock
does disclose flipping the sample 21 about an axis 46, the Examiner has
stated no rational basis for the conclusion that Pollock could be used to grip
opposing corners of a reticle. Therefore, Appellant has shown that the
Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 7-9 is in error.
With respect to Appellant’s other arguments in the Reply Brief, we
must reiterate that the reticle in claims 1 and 3 is an object worked upon and
is not positively recited in the claim. Furthermore, we must reiterate that
Appeal 2009-002600
Application 10/891,406

8
gripping of the reticle near an edge thereof is merely an intended use and
even if it were given weight, Espy would be able to further increase the
displacement of the reticle if Espy is operated to grip the reticle near an edge
thereof. As we view Appellant’s claims 1 and 3, Espy is able to satisfy this
functional requirement.
Finally with regard to claim 5 which positively recites the method step
of gripping the reticle near an edge thereof, we note that while we have
determined that Espy is capable of performing this function, Espy does not
clearly teach this method step. Therefore, the method claim 5 is allowable
over Espy or Espy in view of Pollock and the admitted prior art.

CONCLUSIONS

Appellant has not established that the Examiner erred in rejecting the
apparatus claims 1 and 3.
The Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
method claim 5 and apparatus claims 7-9 which are directed to C-shaped
grippers for gripping the corners of the reticle.
Therefore, the rejections of claims 1and 3 are affirmed, and the
rejections of claims 5 and 7-9 are reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Vsh
Appeal 2009-002600
Application 10/891,406

9
DONALD E. SCHREIBER
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
POST OFFICE BOX 2926
KINGS BEACH CA 96143-2926