Ex Parte Chan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2016

12681717 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2016)

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.
12/681,717 04/05/2010 Sok Leng Chan 640P011 6291
42754 7590 12/20/2016
Nields, Lemack & Frame, LLC
176 E. Main Street
Suite #5
Wes thorough, MA 01581
EXAMINER
AN, SHAWN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/20/2016 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 SOK LENG CHAN
Appeal 2016-000128
Application 12/681,717
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 3—5, 7—15, and 17—26. Claim 2 has been canceled and claims 6
and 16 have been withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2016-000128
Application 12/681,717
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
According to Appellant, the claims are directed to a method and
system for inspecting and detecting micro-cracks in wafers (Abstract).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An inspection method comprising:
directing light at a first surface of a wafer along a first
direction, the wafer having the first surface and a second
surface, wherein the first surface and the second surface are two
outward facing surfaces of the wafer and are each substantially
parallel to an x-y plane, wherein the second surface is on an
opposite side of the wafer as the first surface;
receiving light transmitted through the first surface of the
wafer and emanating from the second surface of the wafer
substantially along the first direction for obtaining a first image
of the second surface therefrom, the wafer having a crack
formed therein, the first image showing the crack as having a
first set of line widths;
directing light at the first surface of the wafer along a
second direction;
receiving light transmitted through the first surface of the
wafer and emanating from the second surface of the wafer
substantially along the second direction for obtaining a second
image of the first surface therefrom, the orthographic projection
of the second direction on the x-y plane being substantially
perpendicular to the orthographic projection of the first
direction on the x-y plane, wherein the second image captures
substantially the same surface area of the wafer as the first
image, and shows the crack as having a second set of line
widths different from the first set of line widths in the first
image; and
constructing a third image from the first image and
second image such that the third image shows the crack as
having a third set of line widths, wherein the third image is
substantially processable for inspecting the crack in the wafer.
2
Appeal 2016-000128
Application 12/681,717
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Camus et al.
Tantalo et al.
Brasen et al.
Micotto et al.
Clasen
Yoshiura et al.
US 6,088,470
US 6,891,570 B2
US 2007/0009148 Al
US 2007/0188610 Al
US 7,667,834 B2
US 7,801,357 B2
July 11,2000
May 10, 2005
Jan. 11,2007
Aug. 16, 2007
Feb. 23, 2010
Sept. 21,2010
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3—5, 7—9, 14, 15, 17—19, and 24—26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clasen and Brasen (Final Act.
2-5).
Claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Clasen, Brasen, and Tantalo (Final Act. 5—6).
Claims 11 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Clasen, Brasen, Micotto, and Yoshiura (Final Act. 6).
Claims 12, 13, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Clasen, Brasen, and Camus (Final Act. 7).
ISSUES
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 14, 15, 17-19, and24-26
Appellant contends the invention as recited in claims 1, 3—5, 7—9, 14,
15, 17—19, and 24—26, is not obvious over Clasen and Brasen (App. Br. 8).
The issues presented by the arguments are:
Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Clasen
and Brasen teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious “wherein the
3
Appeal 2016-000128
Application 12/681,717
first surface and the second surface are two outward facing surfaces of the
wafer and are each substantially parallel to an x-y plane, wherein the second
surface is on an opposite side of the wafer as the first surface,” as recited in
independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claim 14?
Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Clasen
and Brasen teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious “receiving light
transmitted through the first surface of the wafer and emanating from the
second surface of the wafer substantially along the first direction for
obtaining a first image of the second surface therefrom,” as recited in
independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claim 14?
ANALYSIS
Appellant asserts the Examiner equates the “top” and “side” surfaces
of Clasen’s workpiece with the recited first and second surfaces of the wafer
(App. Br. 9). According to Appellant, Clasen’s “top” and “side” surfaces of
Clasen’s workpiece are perpendicular and are not parallel to a single plane
and opposite from one another (id. at 10).
Furthermore, Appellant asserts light from Clasen’s light sources (6a,
6b, 6c) does not contact the bottom surface of the workpiece (id.). Appellant
contends light being “transmitted through” the wafer is described as infrared
light that is “transmitted through” the bottom surface of a wafer at an acute
angle, through to the second surface where light emanates and is captured by
an imaging device (id. ).
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. “A plane is a flat
surface that extends in all directions without ending ... it is two-
dimensional, having length and width but no thickness” (Eula Ewing
4
Appeal 2016-000128
Application 12/681,717
Monroe, Math Dictionary (Scholastic Inc. 2006)). We agree with
Appellant’s assertion that being parallel to a single X or Y axis is different
than being parallel to the X-Y axis (Reply Br. 5). Moreover, we are not
persuaded Clasen teaches the first surface and the top surface are on an
opposite side of the wafer. More specifically, we determine the Examiner’s
interpretation of the claim limitation is not consistent with a broad, but
reasonable interpretation that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
understood at the time of the invention. Thus, we are persuaded the
Examiner has not shown the combination of Clasen and Brasen teaches
“wherein the first surface and the second surface are two outward facing
surfaces of the wafer and are each substantially parallel to an x-y plane,
wherein the second surface is on an opposite side of the wafer as the first
surface,” as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in
independent claim 14.
In addition, we agree with Appellant that the light in Clasen is not
“transmitted through” the first surface of the wafer and emanating from the
second surface of the wafer substantially along the first direction (App. Br.
10—11; Reply Br. 4—5). We agree with Appellant that the proposed
interpretation of “transmitted through” is not reasonable. Indeed, we
determine an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have understood
“transmitted through” as interpreted by the Examiner at the time of
invention.
Moreover, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown
changing the light assembly is an obvious design choice. Indeed, as set forth
by Appellant, “Clasen teaches that it is the light emitted by the excitation of
the color pigments that is of interest” whereas the invention as recited,
5
Appeal 2016-000128
Application 12/681,717
passes light though a wafer, and captures transmitted light with an imaging
device (Reply Br. 2—3). We are not persuaded moving the light assembly, as
suggested by the Examiner (Ans. 10), given the differences in the principles
of operation, would have been an obvious design choice to an ordinarily
skilled artisan.
Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments. It
follows that Appellant has shown that the Examiner failed to show the
combined teachings and suggestions of Clasen and Brasen renders
independent claims 1 and 14 unpatentable.
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner has not shown the
combination of Clasen and Brasen teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders
obvious “wherein the first surface and the second surface are two outward
facing surfaces of the wafer and are each substantially parallel to an x-y
plane, wherein the second surface is on an opposite side of the wafer as the
first surface” and “receiving light transmitted through the first surface of the
wafer and emanating from the second surface of the wafer substantially
along the first direction for obtaining a first image of the second surface
therefrom,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 14. Dependent claims 1,
3—5, 7—9, 15, 17—19, and 24—26, thus fall with their respective independent
claims. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3—5, 7—9, 14,
15, 17—19, and 24—26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Clasen
and Brasen.
6
Appeal 2016-000128
Application 12/681,717
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 10 and20; Claims 11 and 21;
and Claims 12, 13, 22, and 23
Claims 10-13 and 20-23 depend from claims 1 and 14, respectively.
The Examiner has not shown any of Tantalo, Micotto, Yoshiura, or Camus
cure the deficiencies of Clasen and Brasen. Therefore, for the reasons set
forth above, these claims stand with their respective independent claims.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Clasen, Brasen, and Tantalo; of
claims 11 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Clasen,
Brasen, Micotto, and Yoshiura; and of claims 12, 13, 22, and under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Clasen, Brasen, and Camus.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3—5, 7—9, 14, 15, 17—19, and
24—26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clasen and
Brasen is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clasen, Brasen, and Tantalo is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clasen, Brasen, Micotto, and Yoshiura
is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 13, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clasen, Brasen, and Camus is reversed.
REVERSED
7