Ex Parte LEE

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2018

12781532 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/781,532 05/17/2010
61506 7590 12/28/2018
OKAMOTO & BENEDICTO LLP
P.O. BOX 641330
SAN JOSE, CA 95164
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jeong Ho LEE
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.
10011.009500 (P3407) 2915
EXAMINER
AMSDELL, DANA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2018 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 JEONG HO LEE
Appeal2017-010095
Application 12/781,532 1
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, MATTHEWS. MEYERS, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, and 12. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appellant identifies KLA-Tencor Corporation as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-010095
Application 12/781,532
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A method for run-time correction of defect locations
on a substrate during defect review, the method comprising:
loading the substrate into a stage of a review apparatus,
the review apparatus comprising a source for generating an
electron beam, deflectors configured to scan the electron beam
over a field of view, electron lenses for focusing the electron
beam onto a surface of a substrate being reviewed, a detector
for detecting electrons from the substrate, and electronic control
and image analysis circuitry;
receiving coordinates for the defect locations on the
substrate as detected by an inspection system;
sorting and grouping the defect locations by the
electronic control and image analysis circuitry so as to provide
a sequence of groups of defect locations and a sequence of the
defect locations within each group;
determining at least one local reference site in proximity
to each group of defect locations by the electronic control and
image analysis circuitry; and
using the local reference site( s) to determine, by the
electronic control and image analysis circuitry, a positional
offset for the defect locations in each group by obtaining run-
time image data of the local reference site by the review
apparatus and calculating the positional offset by comparing the
run-time image data against data of the reference site(s)
obtained by the inspection system;
selecting a first group in the sequence of groups;
imaging the defect locations within the first group in an
order specified by the sequence of defect locations within the
first group, wherein said imaging obtains run-time image data
for each defect location in each group by imaging a field of
view located at a corrected position that is the coordinates of
the defect location from the inspection system plus the
positional offset for the defect locations in the group to which
the defect belongs; and
2
Appeal2017-010095
Application 12/781,532
repeating selection of a next group in the sequence of
groups and imaging the defect location within the next group in
an order specified by the sequence of defect location within the
next group, until there is no further groups to select in the
sequence of groups.
REJECTION
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b)
as anticipated byNakasuji et al. (US 2002/0130262 Al, pub. Sept. 19, 2002)
(hereinafter "N akasu j i ").
FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis.
ANALYSIS
According to the Appellant, independent claim 1 was rejected
erroneously, because Nakasuji does not teach the following recited features:
receiving coordinates for the defect locations on the
substrate as detected by an inspection system; ...
determining at least one local reference site in proximity
to each group of defect locations by the electronic control and
image analysis circuitry; and
using the local reference site( s) to determine, by the
electronic control and image analysis circuitry, a positional
offset for the defect locations in each group by obtaining run-
time image data of the local reference site by the review
apparatus and calculating the positional offset by comparing the
run-time image data against data of the reference site(s)
obtained by the inspection system;
selecting a first group in the sequence of groups; [and]
imaging the defect locations within the first group ... by
imaging a field of view located at a corrected position that is the
coordinates of the defect location from the inspection system
3
Appeal2017-010095
Application 12/781,532
plus the positional offset for the defect locations in the group to
which the defect belongs.
See Appeal Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 5-8. The Appellant contends, for example,
that Nakasuji does not disclose determining a changed location of an
identified defect on a substrate, as expressed in claim 1 's "calculating the
positional offset by comparing the run-time image data against data of the
reference site(s) obtained by the inspection system." See Appeal Br. 8-9;
Reply Br. 5-8.
The portions ofNakasuji that the Examiner identifies as disclosing the
claimed "determin[ing]" and "calculating" the "positional offset" - ,r,r 272,
377,491, 502-506, and Figs. 56-582 in the Final Office Action (pages 8-10)
and ,r,r 19,106,245,272,359,360, and Fig. 18 in the Answer (pages 4--7)
- all involve comparison ofNakasuji's inspection-image data with
"reference image data," in order to determine whether any defect exists, in
the first instance. See Nakasuji ,r,r 44, 65,377,467,482, 502-506, 538.
Yet, there is no disclosure of any defect that has undergone a positional
change relative to portions of the substrate (i.e., the "positional offset" of
claim 1 ). Indeed, Nakasuji characterizes the "reference image data" as
representing a "wafer having no defect." Id. ,r 482. Likewise, Nakasuji
explains:
[T]he present invention allows a plurality of images to be taken
for a plurality of regions to be inspected each displaced from
others while partially superimposing with each other on the
sample and also allows each of these images subject to the
2 Although the Final Office Action (on page 9) refers to features "as shown
in FIG. 59" ofNakasuji, we understand the Examiner to be referring to
Nakasuji's Figure 58. Nakasuji does not include a Figure 59.
4
Appeal2017-010095
Application 12/781,532
inspection to be compared with the reference image thus to
detect a defect in the sample.
Id. ,I 538.
Therefore, the Appellant persuades us of error in the rejection of
claim 1. The Appellant's argument applies equally to independent claim 8
( the other independent claim involved in this Appeal), which contains
similar language to that discussed above. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8,
10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
REVERSED
5