Ex Parte YIN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 18, 2018

13681768 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/681,768 11/20/2012 Gerald Zheyao YIN
23413 7590 07/20/2018
CANTOR COLBURN LLP
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
UNT0054US 1051
EXAMINER
BENNETT, CHARLEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1718
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/20/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GERALD ZHEY AO YIN
and YONG JIANG
Appeal2017-009042
Application 13/681,768 1
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, RAEL YNN P. GUEST, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner's
decision finally rejecting claims 1-3 and 10-14.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM and designate our affirmance as new grounds of rejection
under 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b).
1 The real party in interest is said to be Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment,
Inc. Appeal Brief dated January 25, 2017 ("Br."), at 3.
2 Claims 4--9 and 15-20 are also pending but have been withdrawn from
consideration.
Appeal2017-009042
Application 13/681,768
The claims on appeal are directed to a chemical vapor deposition or
epitaxial-layer growth reactor comprising a substrate carrier having a second
surface and a supporter having a spindle part and a plug-in part. The second
surface of the substrate carrier is provided with a recess. The plug-in part is
detachably inserted into the recess, and both the plug-in part and the recess have an
elliptical cross section in the horizontal plane.
In contrast to the prior art, the Appellants disclose that rotation of the
substrate carrier is not realized by a friction fit between the plug-in part and the
recess. Spec. ,r 35. Rather, the Appellants disclose that "there is a clearance fit" in
the disclosed invention. Id. That is, the elliptical area of the plug-in part is smaller
or slightly smaller than the elliptical area of the internal circumferential wall of the
recess, as illustrated in Appellants' Figure 3A, reproduced below. Id .
. F.ig, .Ji\
Appellants' Figure 3A illustrates the position relationship
between plug-in part 24 and recess 5.
When the plug-in part rotates to a certain position, the Appellants disclose
that some portions of the periphery of the plug-in part abut or resist against some
2
Appeal2017-009042
Application 13/681,768
portions of the internal circumferential wall of the recess. Id. In that way, the
plug-in part is said to push, force or drive the substrate carrier to rotate
synchronously in the direction of the horizontal plane. Id.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief.
1. A chemical vapor deposition or epitaxial-layer growth reactor,
comprising a reaction chamber in which a substrate carrier and a
supporter for supporting the substrate carrier are provided, wherein
the substrate carrier comprises a first surface and a second
surface, the first surface is configured to place several substrates to be
processed thereon; the second surface of the substrate carrier is
provided with a recess concaved inwardly and having an elliptic cross
section in the horizontal plane;
the supporter comprises: a spindle part; a supporting part
connected to one end of the spindle part and extending outwardly
from the periphery of the spindle part, the supporting part comprising
a supporting surface; and a plug-in part comprising an elliptic cylinder
having an elliptic cross section in the horizontal plane and connected
to the spindle part and extending by a height towards the first surface
of the substrate carrier;
the plug-in part of the supporter is inserted detachably into the
recess, so as to enable the substrate carrier to be removably placed on
and supported by the supporter, and in a supporting case, the
supporting surface of the supporting part at least partially contacts
with at least a part of the second surface of the substrate carrier, so
that the substrate carrier is supported by the supporting surface in
contact with the substrate carrier;
at least one portion of the periphery of the plug-in part resists
against at least one portion of an internal circumferential wall of the
recess to render the plug-in part to drive the substrate carrier to rotate;
and,
wherein an elliptical area surrounded by the periphery of the
plug-in part is smaller than an elliptical area surrounded by an internal
circumferential wall of the recess, such that there is a clearance
3
Appeal2017-009042
Application 13/681,768
between the periphery of the plug-in part and the internal
circumferential wall of the recess, whereby allowing thermal
expansion of the plug-in part.
Br. 23-24.
Claim 12, the other independent claim on appeal, also recites a chemical
vapor deposition or epitaxial-layer growth reactor substantially the same as recited
in claim 1 with the additional limitation that "wherein when the substrate carrier is
placed on the supporter, a clearance exists between a top surface of the recess and
a top surface of the plug-in part." Br. 27.
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection on appeal:
(1) claims 1-3 and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Begamey3 in view ofBoguslavskiy 769,4 Woods, 5 and Stojanovski; 6
(2) claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Begamey in
view ofBoguslavskiy 769, Woods, and Stojanovski, and further in view of
Yamaguchi; 7 and
(3) claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Begamey in
view ofBoguslavskiy 769, Woods, and Stojanovski, and further in view of
Boguslavskiy 139. 8
B. DISCUSSION
3 WO 2009/049020 A2, to Begamey et al., published April 16, 2009 ("Begamey").
4 US 6,726,769 B2, to Boguslavskiy et al., issued April 27, 2004 ("Boguslavskiy
769").
5 US 2011/0092144 Al, to Woods et al., published April 21, 2011 ("Woods").
6 US 2009/0169318 Al, to Stojanovski, published July 2, 2009 ("Stojanovski").
7 US 2002/0170679 Al, to Yamaguchi et al., published November 21, 2002
("Yamaguchi").
8 US 7,235,139 B2, to Boguslavskiy et al., issued June 26, 2007 ("Boguslavskiy
139").
4
Appeal2017-009042
Application 13/681,768
The Examiner finds Begamey discloses a chemical vapor deposition or
epitaxial-layer growth reactor comprising a reaction chamber, wherein substrate
carrier 7 6 and supporter 7 5 for supporting the substrate carrier are provided in the
reaction chamber. Final Act. 4. 9 The Examiner finds substrate carrier 76
comprises a first surface configured for placing several substrates thereon and a
second surface provided with a recess concaved inwardly. Final Act. 4. The
Examiner finds supporter 7 5 comprises spindle part 81, supporting part 82
connected to one end of the spindle part and extending outwardly from the
periphery of the spindle part, and a plug-in part connected to the spindle part.
Final Act. 4. Begamey Figure 22, reproduced below, illustrates a supporter or
center rotation shaft.
x:E~:~t
1_1_:_:_t_-"
~ -~~ ... ,t:~:=·
I I
I I
I I "
1 •••••••••••••• ,
Begamey Figure 22 is a side view of an embodiment
of the center rotation shaft assembly.
9 Final Office Action dated August 25, 2016.
5
Appeal2017-009042
Application 13/681,768
The Examiner finds the plug-in part is inserted detachably into the recess
provided in the second surface of substrate carrier 7 6 and the supporting surface of
supporting part 82 contacts at least a part of the second surface of the substrate
carrier. Final Act. 4.
The Examiner finds Begarney discloses that supporter 7 5 causes rotational
movement of substrate carrier 76. Final Act. 5. The Examiner, however, finds that
"Begarney does not explicitly disclose a portion of the periphery [of the plug-in
part] resists against a portion of an internal circumferential wall of the recess to
render the plug-in-part to drive the substrate carrier to rotate" as claimed. Final
Act. 5. The Examiner also finds Begarney "does not explicitly disclose the second
surface of the substrate carrier having an elliptic cross section in the horizontal
plane, and the plug-in part comprising an elliptic cylinder having an elliptic cross
section in the horizontal plane." Final Act. 5. Finally, the Examiner finds
Begarney does not disclose:
wherein an elliptical area surrounded by the periphery of the plug-in
part is smaller than an elliptical area surrounded by an internal
circumferential wall of the recess, such that there is a clearance
between the periphery of the plug-in part and the internal
circumferential wall of the recess, whereby allowing thermal
expansion of the plug-in part.
Final Act. 6 ( emphasis omitted).
Woods discloses a power tool accessory that is adapted to be mounted to the
spindle of a power tool via bolt 230. Woods ,r 3. In a preferred embodiment,
Woods Figure 3, reproduced below, depicts a hub having a hexagonal aperture 214
for receiving hexagonal retainer portion 426 of nut 232.
6
Appeal2017-009042
Application 13/681,768
tJ(l
HG3
Woods Figure 3 is an exploded view of a tool wheel.
The Examiner finds Woods also discloses that the hub may have an oval or
elliptical aperture 214 and a retainer portion 426 having a complimentary shape. 10
Ans. 5. In particular, Woods discloses:
[T]he aperture [214] may have a periphery of a wide variety of
shapes, such as a non-circular periphery, a triangular aperture, a
square aperture, an oval aperture, etc. The particular shape of the
contour is not critical, provided that the contour resists rotation of the
brush wheel 126 relative to the spindle (e.g., spindle 122 as shown in
FIG. 1).
Woods ,r 25 ( emphasis omitted).
Retainer portion 426 of nut 232 is fastened to bolt 230, which, in tum, is
coupled to spindle 122. According to Woods:
[T]the retainer portion 426 is complementary to the shape of the
periphery 216 of the aperture 214, such that the retainer portion 426
fits tightly into the contoured aperture 214. The complementary shape
of the periphery 216 of the aperture 214 and the retainer portion 426
limits or prevents relative rotation between the spindle 122, the wheel
10 We understand the Examiner to find that retainer portion 426 corresponds to the
claimed plug-in part.
7
Appeal2017-009042
Application 13/681,768
hub 210 and the nut 232 (e.g. and between the brush wheel 126 and
the spindle 122).
Woods ,r 30 ( emphasis omitted).
Based on those disclosures, we find Woods teaches that at least one portion
of the periphery of retainer portion 426 (which corresponds to the claimed plug-in
part) resists against at least one portion of aperture 214, enabling retainer portion
426 to drive brush wheel 126 to rotate as recited in claim 1. 11
We also find Woods teaches the clearance recited in claim 1, i.e., "between
the periphery of the plug-in part and the internal circumferential wall of the
recess ... [to] allow[] thermal expansion of the plug-in part." Br. 24.
Woods discloses that "[i]n some embodiments, the bolt 230 and the nut 232
[ which includes retainer portion 426] are designed to be unfastened or removably
interconnected from each other and from the tool wheel [including hub 210]."
Woods ,r 34 ( original emphasis omitted). Thus, we find that in those embodiments,
there is some amount of clearance between retainer portion 426 of nut 232 and
aperture 214 to facilitate the removal of nut 232 from aperture 214. We find that
such clearance would permit at least some thermal expansion of retainer portion
426. 12 In that regard, the Examiner correctly concludes that claim 1 does not recite
11 The Examiner also finds Boguslavskiy 7 69 discloses a rotatable spindle and a
wafer carrier, wherein "the spindle is capable of rotating the wafer carrier ... via ..
. separate retaining means (900) pushing on the internal wall(s) of the recess(es)
(299)." Final Act. 5 (emphasis added). We find the teachings of Boguslavskiy 769
are cumulative of the teachings in Woods. Therefore, it is not necessary to address
the Examiner's factual findings and legal conclusions as to Boguslavskiy 769 or
any arguments related thereto.
12 Stojanovski also discloses cutting tool 12 having an elliptically shaped plug-in
part 45 inserted detachably into an elliptically shaped recess 33 of tool holder 16,
such that there is a clearance between the periphery of plug-in part 45 and the
internal circumferential wall of recess 33. See Stojanovski Fig. 7. We find the
8
Appeal2017-009042
Application 13/681,768
the dimensions of the claimed clearance. Ans. 13; 13 see also Spec. ,r 35 (disclosing
that the elliptical area of the plug-in part may be only "slightly smaller" than the
elliptical area of the internal circumferential wall of the recess). Likewise, claim 1
does not recite the conditions under which thermal expansion occurs, the materials
of the substrate carrier and the plug-in part subject to those conditions, or the
degree of thermal expansion.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify Begarney's plug-in part and corresponding
recess to have an elliptical cross-section with some amount of clearance as taught
by Woods as an alternative means to impart rotational torque to Begarney's
substrate carrier. Our combination of Begarney and Woods is nothing more than
the predictable use of prior art elements (i.e., a plug-in part and a corresponding
receiving structure) according to their established functions (i.e., to provide
rotational torque). See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)
("The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.").
The Appellants argue that Woods is not reasonably pertinent to the
Appellants' problem, i.e., "how to detachably place a substrate carrier on top of a
rotating spindle, while enabling synchroneous [sic] rotation without slippage and
preventing damage from thermal expansion." Br. 17 (emphasis added). More
specifically, the Appellants argue:
teachings in Stojanovski are cumulative of the teachings in Woods. Therefore, it is
not necessary to address the Examiner's factual findings and legal conclusions as
to Stojanovski or the Appellants' arguments related to those findings and
conclusions.
13 Examiner's Answer dated March 23, 2017.
9
Appeal2017-009042
Application 13/681,768
In Woods the nut 232 is tightened to the bolt 230 such that the
arrangement is fixed and not detacheable [sic]. Thus, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would not consider the solution of Woods as
transferable to a plasma processing chamber wherein the carrier needs
to be assembled and removed by a robot.
Br. 17.
The Appellants' argument is not persuasive of reversible error. Claim 1
does not recite that the plug-in part is configured for removal by a robot. Claim 1
merely recites that "the plug-in part of the supporter is inserted detachably into the
recess." Br. 23. A preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Woods'
retainer 426 is inserted detachably into aperture 214. 14 See Woods ,r 34.
We recognize that Woods discloses a power tool accessory, not a substrate
carrier as claimed. Nonetheless, we find that Woods, like the Appellants, is
concerned with synchronous rotation. Therefore, we find that Woods "logically
would have commended itself' to the Appellants' attention in considering their
problem. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The Appellants also argue:
[I]t is not the plug-in part of the spindle that is made to fit the aperture
[in Woods], but rather it is the nut [232] that is to be tightened to the
bolt 230 - the spindle 122 is round just as in the other cited prior art.
Thus, if Woods can be said to suggest anyting [sic], then it suggests to
do away with the plug-in part of the spindle and instead use a bolt and
nut arrangement on top of the round spindle.
Br. 17-18.
Claim 1 recites that "the supporter comprises: a spindle part; a supporting
part ... ; and a plug-in part ... connected to the spindle part." Br. 23 (emphasis
14 It is not readily apparent on this record why retainer 426 could not be removed
from aperture 214 by a robot.
10
Appeal2017-009042
Application 13/681,768
added). Thus, contrary to the Appellants' argument, the plug-in part is not part of
the spindle but rather is part of the supporter and is connected to the spindle. We
find that nut 232 is connected to the spindle via bolt 230 in Woods.
For the reasons set forth above, the obviousness rejection of claim 1 is
sustained. Our reasons for sustaining the rejection, however, differ from the
reasons provided by the Examiner. Therefore, we designate our affirmance of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Begamey in view of
Boguslavskiy 769, Woods, and Stojanovski as a new ground of rejection.
The Appellants do not present arguments in support of the separate
patentability of any of the remaining claims on appeal, i.e., claims 2, 3, and 10-14.
Therefore, we adopt the Examiner's factual findings and legal conclusions as to
claims 2, 3, and 10-14 and affirm the rejections of those claims. Because our
affirmance of the rejection of claim 1 has been designated a new ground of
rejection, we also designate our affirmance of the rejections of claims 2, 3, and 12-
14 as new grounds of rejection.
This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.50(b). That section provides that the Appellants, WITHIN TWO MONTHS
FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two
options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to avoid termination of the
appeal as to the rejected claims:
( 1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected,
or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which
event the prosecution will be remanded to the examiner. ...
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under
§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record ....
C. DECISION
11
Appeal2017-009042
Application 13/681,768
The rejection of claims 1-3 and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Begamey in view ofBoguslavskiy 769, Woods, and Stojanovski
is affirmed and designated as a new ground of rejection.
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Begamey in view ofBoguslavskiy 769, Woods, and Stojanovski, and further in
view of Yamaguchi is affirmed and designated as a new ground of rejection.
The rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Begamey in view ofBoguslavskiy 769, Woods, and Stojanovski, and further in
view of Boguslavskiy 139 is affirmed and designated as a new ground of rejection.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b)
12