Ex Parte ISHIKAWA et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 19, 2016

13411120 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/411,120 03/02/2012 TE TS UY A ISHIKAWA 44257 7590 04/21/2016 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP- - Applied Materials 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600 HOUSTON, TX 77046 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. 009540/USAC06/FEG/RTP/PJT 1095 EXAMINER TADESSE, YEWEBDAR T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1717 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/21/2016 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): Pair_Eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TETSUY A ISHIKAWA, RICK J. ROBERTS, HELEN R. ARMER, LEON VOLFOVSKI, JAY D. PINSON, MICHAEL RICE, DAVID H. QUACH, MOHSEN S. SALEK, ROBERT LOWRANCE, JOHN A. BACKER, WILLIAM TYLER WEA VER, CHARLES CARLSON, CHONGY ANG WANG, JEFFREY HUDGENS, HARALD HERCHEN, and BRIAN LUE Appeal2014-006389 Application 13/411,120 Technology Center 1700 Before BR_ADLEY R. GARRJS; PETER F. KR_ATZ; and JULIA HEANEY; Administrative Patent Judges. HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 request review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of a decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 of Application 13/411,120. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Applied Materials, Inc. Br. 3. Appeal2014-006389 Application 13/411,120 BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to a cluster tool for sequential processing of semiconductor wafers in a controlled processing environment. Specification 2. Representative claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief as follows: 1. A cluster tool for processing a substrate, comprising: a central module, the central module comprising: a processing rack, comprising: a first plurality of substrate processing chambers that are positioned adjacent to each other and aligned in a first direction; a second plurality of substrate processing chambers that are positioned adjacent to each other and adjacent to at least one of the first plurality of substrate processing chambers, the second plurality of substrate processing chambers being positioned in a second direction relative to the first direction; a first shuttle robot movable in the first direction for moving substrates between each of the first plurality of substrate processing chambers; and a second shuttle robot movable in the second direction for moving substrates between each of the second plurality of substrate processing chambers. 2 Appeal2014-006389 Application 13/411,120 THE REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1-13, 16-17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a) as anticipated by Zhao. 2 2. Claims 14, 15, 18, and19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Zhao and Ohtani. 3 DISCUSSION Anticipation Rejection Appellants present a single argument for reversal of the rejection of all claims at issue in the anticipation rejection, and do not present separate arguments for any of the independent or dependent claims. App. Br. 7-9. We choose claim 1 as representative; all other claims stand or fall with claim 1. Appellants argue that Zhao does not anticipate the claims because it does not disclose both a "first shuttle robot" and a "second shuttle robot" within the central module of the cluster tool. Id. at 7. The Examiner's position is that claims 1 and 9 "do not specifically recite the positioning of the first and second shuttle robots relative to the central module or processing rack." Ans. 3; Advisory Action dated Sept. 4, 2013. In determining an issue of claim construction, "the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. . . . Therefore, we look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation." In 2 Zhao et al., US 2004/0020601 Al published February 5, 2004 (hereinafter "Zhao"). 3 Ohtani, et al., US 6,099,643 issued August 8, 2000 (hereinafter "Ohtani"). 3 Appeal2014-006389 Application 13/411,120 re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Under that standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Trans logic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We have reviewed the claim language and Specification in light of Appellants' argument and the claim construction presented by the Examiner, and determine that Appellants' argument lacks sufficient support. Claim 1 does not explicitly state the positions of the first and second shuttle robots; nothing in the claim language itself would indicate to a person of ordinary skill in the art that both robots must be positioned within the central module. The Specification describes an embodiment where only a central robot 107 is positioned within the central module, and shuttle robots 110 are positioned in adjacent modules. Specification i-f 98; Figure lB. Further, Appellants have not pointed to anything in the Specification supporting their position that both shuttle robots must be within the central module. Thus, we determine that a construction that does not require the first and second shuttle robots to be positioned within the central module is consistent with the claim language and Specification as they would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we affirm the anticipation rejection. Obviousness Rejection The obviousness rejection is directed only to dependent claims 14, 15, 18, and 19. In challenging the obviousness rejection, Appellants merely refer back to their argument in opposition to the anticipation rejection, argue that deficiencies in Zhao are not cured by Ohtani, and present no argument for separate patentability of the dependent claims. App. Br. 9. Appellants 4 Appeal2014-006389 Application 13/411,120 have thereby waived any argument for patentability of those dependent claims, and we need not address them. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection. SUMMARY We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-13, 16---17, and 20 as anticipated by Zhao under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b). We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 14, 15, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Zhao and Ohtani. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 5