Ex Parte Pasadyn et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 19, 2009

10323529 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 19, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ALEXANDER J. PASADYN, ELFIDO COSS JR.,
BRIAN K. CUSSON, and NAOMI M. JENKINS
____________

Appeal 2008-2624
Application 10/323,529
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided:1 February 20, 2009
____________

Before LEE E. BARRETT, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-2624
Application 10/323,529

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-26, which are all the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

Appellants’ Invention
According to Appellants, processing tools are routinely calibrated at
scheduled times, such that time and effort may be wasted when calibration is
not necessary at a particular time. Commonly, test runs are conducted for
the purpose of calibrating the processing tools or to diagnose processing
problems associated with the tools. (See Spec. 3:9-17.) In Appellants’
system, test runs are initiated based on a fault detection result, rather than
being initiated in accordance with a pre-set schedule. (See Abstract.)
Claims 1 and 18 are illustrative.
1. A method, comprising:
receiving operational data associated with processing a workpiece by
a processing tool;
processing the operational data to determine fault detection results;
and
causing a test run to be performed based on at least a portion of the
fault detection results.

18. An article comprising one or more machine-readable storage
media containing instructions that when executed enable a processor to:
receive operational data associated with processing of a workpiece by
a processing tool;
Appeal 2008-2624
Application 10/323,529

3
determine a health value associated with the processing tool based at
least on the received operational data; and
cause a test run to be performed based on the determined health value.

The Rejection
The Examiner relies on the following reference as evidence of
unpatentability.
Jeon 6,090,632 Jul. 18, 2000

Claims 1-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Jeon.

FINDINGS OF FACT
Jeon
Jeon’s Figure 3A is reproduced below:
Appeal 2008-2624
Application 10/323,529

4

Jeon’s Figure 3A shows a flowchart for a method of real time control
of semiconductor processing equipment. The method includes determining,
at step S10, whether measurements of a “characteristic value” of a product
after initial processing are within the optimal ranges for such a product. The
range of optimal values is stored in the host computer (S12). At step S16, a
Appeal 2008-2624
Application 10/323,529

5
characteristic value of the product is measured and reported to the host
computer. At step S18, it is determined whether or not the characteristic
value is within the range of optimal values. Jeon col. 3, ll. 15-40.
If in step S10 the product’s characteristic value is not in the range of
optimal values, the product is determined to be defective. In the case of a
defective product, processing is stopped. Id., col. 4, ll. 36-47.
If in step S10 the product’s characteristic value is within the range of
optimal values, the product is determined to be not defective. However, the
non-defective product is further tested. Id., col. 3, ll. 41-58.
The further testing of the non-defective product occurs at step S20. If
the product does not pass the further testing, processing is stopped (S50). A
worker can then adjust the process condition of the equipment (S60). Id.,
col. 3, l. 59 - col. 4, l. 29.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art reference
disclosure of each and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as
in the claim.” Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist &
Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

ANALYSIS
Grouping of Claims
We will consider the claims in separate groups consistent with the
headings of Appellants’ Appeal Brief, and decide the appeal with respect to
Appeal 2008-2624
Application 10/323,529

6
each group by selecting a single claim, when appropriate. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Independent claim 1 (claims 2-9 dependent)
Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 errs because Jeon does
not describe performing the “main” test (S20, Fig. 3A) based on fault
detection results. Appellants rely on Jeon column 3, lines 55 through 58,
which discloses that the “process” is tested “even when the product is not
defective, i.e., even when the measured characteristic value is within the
range of optimal values.”
Instant claim 1 recites “causing a test run to be performed based on a
least a portion of the fault detection results.” Appellants’ arguments do not
take into account the “No” branch of step S18 in Jeon’s Figure 3A. As we
have noted, if a product’s characteristic value is not in the range of optimal
values, the product is determined to be defective and processing is stopped.
Jeon, col. 4, ll. 36-47. Jeon thus describes a preliminary fault detection that
determines whether the “main” test (S20) is to be run. As such, we find that
Jeon describes causing a test run (S20) to be performed based on at least a
portion of the fault detection results (S18).2
We are therefore not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding of
anticipation with respect to claim 1. We sustain the § 102 rejection of claim

2 Appellants seem to acknowledge (App. Br. 10) that the “main test” of step
S20 is a type of “test run.” In any event, the first run after a reset or
equipment repair (Jeon col. 4, ll. 18-29; Fig. 3A, S50 and S60) is also a “test
run” within the meaning of claim 1.
Appeal 2008-2624
Application 10/323,529

7
1 over Jeon. We will consider some of the claims dependent on claim 1,
infra.

Independent claims 10, 17, 18, 25 (and claims 2 and 3, dependent on
claim 1)
Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 18 errs because the
Examiner reads both the “operational data” and the “health value” on the
“characteristic value” of Jeon. (App. Br. 8-10.) The Examiner makes clear
in the Answer (at 8) that the rejection maps the claimed “operational data” to
Jeon’s measured characteristic value, and the claimed “health value” to the
acceptable range stored in the host computer. Appellants respond, in turn,
that the claims call for determining the “health value” based on the received
“operational data.” Since the “acceptable range” is simply a pre-stored
range in the host computer, Jeon does not describe determining the
“acceptable range” based on the “measured characteristic value,” in
Appellants’ view. (Reply Br. 3-4.)
Jeon discloses that at step S16 (Fig. 3A), “a characteristic value of a
product completed through the first process is obtained by measurement and
reported to the host computer.” At step S18, “it is determined whether the
measured and reported characteristic value is within the range of optimal
values or not.” Jeon col. 3, ll. 31-36.
We find that Jeon’s measured characteristic value corresponds to the
“operational data” of claim 18. The “determination” of the “health value” in
Jeon is not, as Appellants suggest, simply the pre-stored range of optimal
values. Jeon describes a comparison of the measured characteristic value
Appeal 2008-2624
Application 10/323,529

8
with the stored range of optimal values. As such, we agree with the
Examiner that Jeon describes determining a “health value” associated with
the processing tool based at least on the received operational data. The
“health value” as claimed requires no more than, for example, a binary
“value” of “acceptable” vis-à-vis “not acceptable,” or “within range” vis-à-
vis “out of range.” That is, the “health value” is met by the result of the
determination in Jeon of whether (or not) the operational data (or measured
characteristic value) is within the range of optimal values that is stored in the
host computer.
Being not persuaded of error in the rejection of claims 2, 3, 10, 17, 18,
and 25, we sustain the § 102 rejection of those claims over Jeon.

Dependent claims 4, 5, 13, and 14
Each of claims 4 and 13 requires determining a particular type of test
run to be performed based on classification of the fault. Claims 5 and 14
depend from claims 4 and 13, respectively.
For “classification” of the fault, the Examiner refers to Figure 4B of
Jeon, which depicts a modification of the basic process in which various
subtests (steps S122, S124, S126) may be performed after the “main” test
(S70). (Ans. 7.)
Appellants do not argue that the process subtesting shown in Jeon’s
Figure 4B is not a type of “test run” as recited in claim 4. Appellants do
argue, however, that the Specification explains that “classification” refers to
determining at least one cause of the detected fault. (App. Br. 11.) As such,
Appeal 2008-2624
Application 10/323,529

9
Appellants submit that Jeon does not describe a particular type of test run
that can be run based on the classification of the fault. (Id.)
Actually, the Specification section upon which Appellants rely states
that “[c]lassifying the detected fault(s) (at 325) [Fig. 3] may include
determining at least one cause of the detected fault(s), a process sometimes
also referred to as ‘classification.’” (Spec. 15:22-24, emphasis added.) The
Specification thus provides an example, but not a limiting definition, of what
might constitute “classifying” a fault.
Because we are not persuaded that the Specification provides a
particular definition for “classifying,” and Appellants do not allege any
special meaning known in the pertinent art, we look to the ordinary meaning
of the term. The transitive verb “classify” may be defined as “[t]o arrange or
organize according to class or category.” The American Heritage Dictionary
of the English Language, Fourth Edition (2000), available at
http://www.bartleby.com/61/9/C0390900.html (last visited Feb. 12, 2009).
Jeon’s step S70 (Fig. 4B) may thus be considered as detecting and
“classifying” the fault by organizing the fault according to the class or
category of products that fail to satisfy the main specific rule as opposed to
the class or category comprised of products that satisfy the main specific
rule. Jeon further describes (Fig. 4B) determining a particular type of test
run (S122) based on the classification of the fault (S70).
We are therefore not persuaded that the broad terms of claim 4 are not
met by Jeon. We sustain the rejection of claim 4. Claim 13 falls with claim
4. We will consider further requirements of dependent claims 5 and 14,
infra.
Appeal 2008-2624
Application 10/323,529

10

Dependent claims 5 and 14
Claims 5 and 14 require, inter alia, receiving operational data from an
upstream processing tool. We agree with Appellants that the rejection fails
to show any description in Jeon of receiving operational data from an
upstream processing tool, in addition to receiving operational data from
another processing tool as required in base claims 1 and 10, respectively.
We thus do not sustain the § 102 rejection of claims 5 and 14.

Dependent claims 6, 15, and 22
Each of dependent claims 6, 15, and 22 requires calibrating the
processing tool based on causing the test run to be performed.
The rejection (e.g., Ans. 4 and 8) points to various parts of Jeon that
are deemed to describe calibrating the processing tool as claimed. However,
we do not find any clear description in the reference of calibrating
processing tools, and certainly not in the sections relied upon by the
rejection.
We conclude that Jeon does not provide adequate support for the
Examiner’s finding that Jeon describes calibrating the processing tool in
accordance with the claims. We do not sustain the § 102 rejection of claims
6, 15, and 22 over Jeon.

Summary
We have sustained the rejection of all independent claims (1, 10, 17,
18, and 25) on appeal, and the rejection of dependent claims 4 and 13. We
Appeal 2008-2624
Application 10/323,529

11
have not sustained the rejection of dependent claims 5, 6, 14, 15, and 22.
Claim 16 depends from claim 15. Claim 23 depends from claim 22.
In view of the claim dependencies, we sustain the rejection of claims
1-4, 7-13, 17-21, and 24-26. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 5, 6,
14-16, 22, and 23.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Jeon is affirmed with respect to claims 1-4, 7-13, 17-21,
and 24-26, but reversed with respect to claims 5, 6, 14-16, 22, and 23.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

msc

WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON
10333 RICHMOND, SUITE 1100
HOUSTON TX 77042