Ex Parte Miller et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 27, 2012

10225638 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 27, 2012)

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.
10/225,638 08/22/2002 Michael L. Miller 2000.098400 3361
92585 7590 01/30/2012
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
c/o Williams, Morgan & Amerson, P.C.
10333 Richmond, Suite 1100
Houston, TX 77042
EXAMINER
WHITMORE, STACY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2825
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/30/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL L. MILLER and CHRISTOPHER A. BODE

_____________

Appeal 2007-003809
Application 10/225,638
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2007-003809
Application 10/225,638

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-36. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).1
We reverse.

INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a device’s fabrication
process, wherein a prediction unit 130 begins with default values for the
characteristics of the device, such as line width, spacer width, contact size,
layer thicknesses, implant dose, and implant energy. As the device
progresses through the fabrication process, data is collected that indicates the
actual values of these characteristics. The collected data is substituted for
the initial data, and the prediction unit 130 updates its prediction of the
electrical characteristics of the completed device. See Spec. 9:11-24; Fig. 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method, comprising:
providing a set of initial characteristic values associated with a
semiconductor device;
performing a first fabrication process on the semiconductor device;
collecting fabrication data associated with the first fabrication process;
replacing at least one of the initial characteristic values with the
fabrication data collected for the first fabrication process to generate a first
modified set of characteristic values; and
predicting a first value for at least one electrical characteristic of the
semiconductor device based on the first modified set of characteristic values.

1 We appreciate the Examiner’s response to the Board’s threshold inquiry as
stated in the remand to the Examiner dated March 17, 2008. However, we
note that this opinion is not a response to a re-hearing, since the Board had
not heard the case yet. This opinion constitutes the hearing of the case.
Appeal 2007-003809
Application 10/225,638

3

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Toprac US 6,622,059 B1 Sep. 16, 2003
(filed Apr. 13, 2000)
The following rejection is before us for review:
The Examiner rejected claims 1-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Toprac.

ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Toprac
teaches the limitation of “replacing at least one of the initial characteristic
values with the fabrication data collected for the first fabrication process to
generate a first modified set of characteristic values” as recited in claim 1.

PRINCIPLE OF LAW
To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence “‘must make clear that
the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in
the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary
skill.’” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citation
omitted).

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that Toprac does not teach replacing at least one of
the initial characteristic values with the fabrication data collected for the first
Appeal 2007-003809
Application 10/225,638

4
fabrication process or updating the vector with the collected characteristics
(Br. 5).
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument.
First, the Examiner identifies Toprac’s input to the transistor model in
a vector representation (col. 9, ll. 54-55), as the claimed “initial
characteristic values” (Ans. 3). Then the Examiner (id.) equates Toprac’s
teaching (col. 2, ll. 41-63) of forming an output signal corresponding to the
characteristic measured to the claimed first fabrication process and
collecting data on the first process. The pertinent part of Toprac’s cited
section describes “processing a workpiece, measuring a parameter
characteristic of the processing, and forming an output signal corresponding
to the characteristic parameter measured by using the characteristic
parameter measured as an input to a transistor” (col. 2, ll. 41-47 (emphases
added)). We agree with the Examiner that Toprac’s measured parameter
characteristic or input to the transistor can be reasonably interpreted as the
initial characteristic value(s). However, we do not agree with the
Examiner’s finding (Ans. 3) that manipulation of the input to the transistor
to get an output signal as being tantamount to the claimed limitation of
“collecting fabrication data associated with the first fabrication process.”
The Examiner then states that the replacing of at least one of the
initial characteristic values with the collected data to generate a modified set
of data is met again by the same section of Toprac (id.), concluding that the
output signal is the replaced initial characteristic. Again, there is no
reasonable explanation how the manipulated input signal based on the single
initial measurement signal to get an output signal constitutes “collecting
fabrication data” let alone also meeting the limitation of “replacing at least
Appeal 2007-003809
Application 10/225,638

5
one of the initial characteristic values with the fabrication data collected for
the first fabrication process to generate a first modified set of characteristic
values.”
In other words, the cited section of Toprac teaches forming an output
signal corresponding to a measured parameter that serves as an input to a
transistor. Toprac does not teach the limitation of “replacing at least one of
the initial characteristic values with the fabrication data collected for the
first fabrication process to generate a first modified set of characteristic
values” as recited in claim 1 (emphases added). We cannot find a teaching
in Toprac of a modification of the characteristic values with collected
fabrication data.
It appears that the Examiner’s general assertion (Ans. 6) is that
because the WET value is part of a feedback loop and values are adjusted or
modified (citing Toprac, cols. 7-8) then there might be an adjustment of the
characteristic values. However, anticipation cannot be based on possibilities
or probabilities, but rather must be based on what is necessarily present in
the reference either expressly or inherently. See Robertson, 169 F.3d at 745.
Furthermore, while Toprac teaches that an engineer may need to adjust any
of the processing steps including the characteristic parameters modeled (col.
8, ll. 12-20), there is no teaching of a modification of characteristic values
based on collected fabrication data. On the contrary, it appears that the
possible modification to characteristic values (id.), are based on the
prediction of the resulting values, rather than on collected fabrication data.
For the aforesaid reasons we will reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 and for similar reasons the rejection of claims 2-36.

Appeal 2007-003809
Application 10/225,638

6
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding that Toprac teaches the limitation of
“replacing at least one of the initial characteristic values with the fabrication
data collected for the first fabrication process to generate a first modified set
of characteristic values” as recited in claim 1.

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-36 is reversed.

REVERSED

babc