Ex Parte Rogers et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 10, 2015

11427351 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111427,351 0612912006
23494 7590 12/14/2015
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
P 0 BOX 655474, MIS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Duncan M Rogers
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
TI-37592.1 2305
EXAMINER
SMYTH, ANDREW P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2881
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/14/2015 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DUNCAN M. ROGERS and
VLADIMIR A. UKRAINTSEV
Appeal2014-000906
Application 11/427,351
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 9-16, 18-26 and 28-31. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim a method for characterizing a structure or set of
structures on a semiconductor device. Claim 9 is illustrative:
9. A method of characterizing a structure on a
semiconductor device, comprising:
establishing a reference position on the device using one
of scanning probe microscopy (SPM) or profilometry;
Appeal2014-000906
Application 11/427 ,351
establishing a target position on an upper surface of the
structure using the one of SPM or profilometry, the upper
surface being located further away from the device than the
location of the reference position; and
determining a difference between the reference position
and the target position, the difference defining a physical height
of the structure;
wherein the reference position and the portion of the
device coupled to the structure are coplanar, and further
wherein at least one additional structure separates the reference
position from the structure being characterized.
The References
Ema
Kuroki
Yokoyama
Dana
US 5,591,659 Jan. 7, 1997
US 6, 128,209 Oct. 3, 2000
US 6,225,179 Bl May 1, 2001
US 2002/0158197 Al Oct. 31, 2002
Jin US 2007 /0207318 Al Sep. 6, 2007
(§ 37l(c)(l), (2), (4) date Jan. 17, 2007) 1
The Rejections
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 9, 10, 12, 16, 18-20, 22,
26, 28 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Dana, claims 11 and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Dana in view of Jin, claims 13, 23, 30 and 31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Dana in view ofKuroki and Yokoyama, claims 14
and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Dana and claims 15 and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Dana in view of Ema.
OPINION
We reverse the rejections. We need address only the independent
claims (1 and 19). 2 Those claims require determining a difference between a
1 There is no dispute as to whether Jin is prior art.
2
Appeal2014-000906
Application 11/427 ,351
reference position and a target position, the difference defining a physical
height of a structure being characterized.
"Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be
disclosed, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior
art reference." Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. US.A., Inc., 868
F.2d 1251, 1255-56 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Dana discloses "a method and system that includes monitoring and
quality control constituents such as overlay (OL) and critical dimension
(CD) tools" (i-f l ), where overlay is the precision with which successive
masks can be aligned with previous patterns on a silicon wafer (i-f 21 ). "The
overlay (OL) inspection measures the registration of consecutive layers of
multiple-layer semiconductor chips" (i-f 33), i.e., "measures the distances in
the x- and y-directions between successive marks situated in each layer
pattern at precisely defined locations in the peripheral area of the wafer"
(i-f l 05). "[T]he distance between two centers of two shapes is representative
of the registration between the two shapes and which is the objective of the
OL inspection" (i-f 66).
The Examiner relies upon Dana's Figure 7C's profile (38)'s leftmost
point as corresponding to the Appellants' reference position and relies upon
that figure's mark 39-2's upper surface as corresponding to the Appellants'
target position (Ans. 3--4, 21 ). The Examiner asserts that "[ s ]ince Dana is
measuring the mark 39 relative to the bottom plane of the device (fig. 7C,
horizontal line) then the relative difference is the height of the mark 3 9 and
2 In the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 the Examiner does not provide any
obviousness rationale regarding the subject matter of the independent claims
(Ans. 7-11).
3
Appeal2014-000906
Application 11/427 ,351
the initial measurement point is a reference point to establish/determine the
height from" (Ans. 14--15), "[t]his data is generally structured as a series of
XY values representing the coordinates of surface points and the
corresponding Z values representing the perpendicular height of the surface
points" (Ans. 16) and "the values represent position measurements of XY
plane position and Z height data" (Ans. 14).
The Appellants' claims require determining the structure's physical
height relative to the reference position (Spec. i-fi-f 16-18). Dana measures
the overlay of marks 39-1 and 39-2 (i.e., Figure 7C's distance 43 between
the center points 41-1and41-2 of, respectively, marks 39-1and39-2), not
mark 39-2's height ("The distance 43 between the two center points 41-1
and 41-2 of respectively two marks 39-1 and 39-2 is thus indicative of the
overlay in absolute terms" (i-f 110)).
Thus, the Examiner has not established that Dana discloses, expressly
or inherently, the Appellants' claim requirement of determining a difference
between a reference position and a target position, the difference defining a
physical height of a structure being characterized.
For the above reasons we reverse the rejections.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejections of claims 9, 10, 12, 16, 18-20, 22, 26, 28 and 29 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Dana, claims 11and21under35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Dana in view of Jin, claims 13, 23, 30 and 31under35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Dana in view of Kuroki and Yokoyama, claims 14 and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Dana and claims 15 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Dana in view of Ema are reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is reversed.
4
Appeal2014-000906
Application 11/427 ,351
mat
REVERSED
5