Interference No. 105,113
characteristics provide an independent basis for concluding that annealing station 630 or heating
unit 635 inherently include surrounding walls and thus are "chambers" in the sense of Ritzdorf's
claims. Nor are we so persuaded by the following statements about Figure 17 in the
specification: "As such, it becomes possible to hygienically separate the annealing station 630
from other portions of the tool set. Additionally, the illustrated annealing station may be
implemented as a separate module that is attached to upgrade an existing tool set." Id. at 28, ll.
15-18. These statements leave open the possibility that the hygienic barrier is formed around the
"other portions" of the tool set rather than around the annealing station or the heating unit.
Because claims 68, 70, and 73 have 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 written description support in
Ritzdorf's involved '613 application, Cheung Preliminary Motion 2 is denied with respect to
those claims as well as with respect to dependent claims 69 and 71, which are not separately
argued in the motion and specify that the substrate cleaner is "a rinse/dry chamber."
Claim 72, which depends on claim 70, specifies that "the substrate transfer apparatus
comprises a first robot positioned to access the substrate cleaner and the electrolyte processing
cell, and a second robot positioned to access the substrate cleaner and the annealing chamber."
Ritzdorf would have us read the claimed first robot on one of robots 620 and the claimed second
robot on robot 640 in Figure 17. Cheung disagrees, arguing that the robot 640 does not directly
access a wafer inside a rinse/dry station 610 (i.e., substrate cleaner), which instead are directly
accessed only by robots 620. Ritzdorf correctly counters that the claim does not require direct
access to the substrate cleaner by the second robot. The claimed first robot can be read on one of
- 25 -
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007