Ex Parte Yogev

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2012

10980120 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DAVID YOGEV
____________________

Appeal 2010-004038
Application 10/980,120
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-004038
Application 10/980,120

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 2-7 and 15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Introduction
According to Appellant, the invention relates to “semiconductor
manufacturing processes, and specifically to methods and apparatus for
cleaning and handling of lithographic masks used in producing
semiconductor devices.” Spec. 1 ll. 2-5.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Exemplary Claim
Claim 15 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:
15. A method, comprising:
cleaning a mask used in semiconductor fabrication
operations in a mask cleaning station of a semiconductor
fabrication tool so as to remove a contaminant from a surface of
the mask by conveying a fluid through a fluid delivery channel
to the surface of the mask in a vicinity of said contaminant and
removing the fluid and the contaminant from the surface of the
mask by suction through a suction channel disposed in an outer
annular fashion around the fluid delivery channel;
conveying, without human contact or exposure to
ambient air, the mask to a lithography station housed in a
common enclosure with the mask cleaning station; and
projecting a pattern of radiation through the mask onto a
semiconductor wafer in the lithography station.

Appeal 2010-004038
Application 10/980,120

3
References
Kawata 6,038,015 Mar. 14, 2000
Higashiguchi 6,327,021 B1 Dec. 4, 2001
Wallach 3,930,505 Jan. 6, 1976

Rejections
Claims 2-7 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious in view of Kawata, Higashiguchi, and Wallach.

ISSUE
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Kawata, Higashiguchi, and Wallach): claims 2-7 & 15
Appellant argues the invention is not rendered obvious by the
combination of Kawata, Higashiguchi, and Wallach because it would not
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Wallach
with Higashiguchi and Kawata. App. Br. 9-16.

Issue: Has the Examiner erred in combining Wallach with
Higashiguchi and Kawata?

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues five reasons why the combination of Wallach with
Kawata and Higashiguchi is improper:
(1) Higashiguchi teaches away from the combination of Higashiguchi
and Wallach (App. Br. 9-11);
(2) modifying Higashiguchi with Wallach would render Higashiguchi
inoperable for its intended purpose (App. Br. 11-13);
Appeal 2010-004038
Application 10/980,120

4
(3) Wallach changes the principle of operation of Higashiguchi (App.
Br. 13-14);
(4) the asserted combination uses “hindsight reconstruction,”
because the combination used “the teachings of the present
application to act as a guide for assembly of components …
after failing to consider the actual teachings of those references”
(App. Br. 14-15); and
(5) the rationales and motivation provided by the Examiner are flawed
because the rationales are just conclusory statements and
conjecture (App. Br. 15-16).
We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions and highlight the
following. The Examiner finds that “the positional relationship of
Higashiguchi is not contrary to Wallach,” that “Wallach just as efficiently
guides the contaminants to the suction device,” and that “[e]ven with the
suction channel of Higashiguchi disposed in an outer annular fashion, the
gas blowing device is operable to provide its intended purpose of efficiently
guiding the dust particles to the suction device.” Ans. 7-8. We agree and find
that other positional relationships of the suction and nozzle are not
necessarily contrary, but may simply be alternative positional relationships.
Identification by a reference of one structure that enables a device to meet an
objective is not the same as the reference teaching away from other methods
that may allow a device to achieve the same objectives. See In re Fulton,
391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We emphasize:
To justify combining reference teachings in support of a
rejection it is not necessary that a device shown in one
reference can be physically inserted into the device shown in
Appeal 2010-004038
Application 10/980,120

5
the other. The test for obviousness is not whether the features
of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.

In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted).
We find that the Examiner sufficiently “articulate[s] reasoning with
some rational underpinning” to combine known elements in the manner
required by the claim. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007). The Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is supported by
substituting known elements in order to yield a predictable result and
Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence or argument to convince us
of error in the combination.
Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding that the combination
of Kawata, Higashiguchi, and Wallach teaches or suggests the invention as
recited in claim 15 and claims 2-7, not separately argued. Nor did the
Examiner improperly combine Kawata, Wallach, and Higashiguchi.
Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 2-7 and 15.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-7 and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious in view of Kawata, Higashiguchi, and Wallach is
affirmed.

Appeal 2010-004038
Application 10/980,120

6
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) (2011).

AFFIRMED

msc