Ex Parte Greene

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2017

13072510 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017)

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