Ex Parte GreeneDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 27, 201713072510 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/072,510 03/25/2011 John D. GREENE 10011.010400 (P3573) 6139 61506 7590 03/27/2017 OKAMOTO & BENEDICTO LLP P.O. BOX 641330 SAN JOSE, CA 95164 EXAMINER QUIGLEY, KYLE ROBERT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2865 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/27/2017 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN D. GREENE Appeal 2016-001889 Application 13/072,510 Technology Center 2800 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, TERRY J. OWENS, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 8, 9, and 16—18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We refer to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed March 25, 2011; Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated October 20, 2014; Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) dated March 13, 2015, supplemented May 18, 2015; Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated October 6, 2015; and Appellant’s Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) dated November 24, 2015. 2 Appellant identifies KLA-Tencor Corporation as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2016-001889 Application 13/072,510 BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal regards automated inspection of defects on a manufactured substrate, such as an integrated circuit on a semiconductor wafer. Spec. 12. Claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief as follows: 1. An apparatus for inspecting scattered areas on a surface of a manufactured substrate, the apparatus comprising: a source for generating a beam; a lens system configured to focus the beam onto a surface of the substrate; a detector configured to detect radiation emitted from the substrate as a result of the beam impinging onto the surface; a stage configured to hold the substrate and controllably move the substrate under the beam; a system controller that executes an inspection application and a recipe generator, wherein the inspection application controls the apparatus during inspection of the substrate, wherein the recipe generator includes a care area selection module which receives inspection characteristics, machine characteristics, and wafer characteristics, and uses said characteristics to select a set of care areas for use by the inspection application; and a stage speed profile generation module of the inspection application, wherein the stage speed profile generation module divides care areas to be inspected into swaths to be scanned, generates a list of care area extents and gap extents, and divides the list of care area extents and gap extents into groups of care areas that have no gap extent in a first dimension greater than one width of a field of view of the apparatus in the first dimension. 2 Appeal 2016-001889 Application 13/072,510 Each of claims 9 and 18 also is written in independent form, with each of the remaining claims depending from claim 1, 9, or 18. REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:3 I. Claims 1 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Meisburger4 in view of Bevis.5 II. Claims 8 and 16—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Meisburger in view of Bevis, and further in view of Zywno.6 DISCUSSION With regard to Rejections I and II, Appellant argues generally that the Examiner erred in determining that one of ordinary skill would have had a reason to modify Meisburger’s inspection apparatus and method such that care areas identified for inspection are divided into groups of care areas that have no gap extent greater than one width of a field of view. App. Br. 6—7; Reply Br. 2—3. As explained in the specification, areas identified for inspection (so-called “care areas”)7 are separated by gaps (so-called “extents”).8 The list of identified care areas are divided into groups of care areas (so-called “care area sets”) in which no gap extent within the group is 3 Final Act. 3—10; Ans. 2. 4 US 5,717,204, issued February 10, 1998 (“Meisburger”). 5 US 6,886,153 Bl, issued April 26, 2005 (“Bevis”). 6 US 2007/0029506 Al, published February 8, 2007 (“Zywno”). 7 Spec. 5. * Id. at 12. 3 Appeal 2016-001889 Application 13/072,510 greater than one width of the field of view.9 Appellant explains that this division of care areas permits generation of an optimal inspection speed profile for each given care area set. Spec. 3. This feature is recited in claim 1 through the language, “wherein the stage speed profile generation module divides care areas to be inspected into swaths to be scanned, generates a list of care area extents and gap extents, and divides the list of care area extents and gap extents into groups of care areas that have no gap extent in a first dimension greater than one width of a field of view of the apparatus in the first dimension.” Corresponding recitations also appear in independent claims 9 and 18. See App. Br. (Claims Appendix). The Examiner finds that Meisburger fails to disclose dividing care areas into groups based on the dimensions of care area extents or gaps. Final Act. 8. Nonetheless, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill to perform the claimed division of care areas because “[ljocating features closely together on a substrate . . . would permit a reduction in the overall size of a substrate which requires a certain number of essential features.” Id. However, the Examiner does not explain how locating substrate features closely together would result in or lead to the claimed division of care areas into groups, much less how such division would result in groups of care areas having extents no greater than one width of the field of view. On this record, we are persuaded that the Examiner has not set forth a factual basis which is sufficient to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, Rejections I and II are not sustained. 9 Id. 4 Appeal 2016-001889 Application 13/072,510 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 8, 9, and 16—18 is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation