Ex Parte Purdy

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 24, 2012

10979309 (B.P.A.I. May. 24, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/979,309 11/02/2004 Matthew A. Purdy 2000.113600/TT5608 5013
23720 7590 05/25/2012
WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON
10333 RICHMOND, SUITE 1100
HOUSTON, TX 77042
EXAMINER
WACHSMAN, HAL D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2857
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/25/2012 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 MATTHEW A. PURDY
____________

Appeal 2009-012910
Application 10/979,309
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, SCOTT R. BOALICK, and BRUCE R.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-012910
Application 10/979,309

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-6, 13-17, 25, 41, and 49-54. Claims 18-24 and 26-40 have been
canceled, and claims 7-12 and 42-48 have been withdrawn from
consideration in response to a restriction requirement. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Appeal Brief (amended, filed Nov. 7, 2008), the
Answer (mailed Feb. 23, 2009), and the Reply Brief (filed Apr. 30, 2009) for
the respective details.

Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention involves the performance of fault detection
analysis related to the processing of a workpiece. A relationship of a
parameter relating to the fault detection analysis is determined, and a
weighting associated with the parameter is adjusted based on the relationship
of the parameter to the detected fault (see generally Abstract; Spec. 6:7-18).

Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:

1. A method, comprising:
processing a workpiece;
performing a fault detection analysis relating to said processing of
saidworkpiece
determining a relationship of a parameter relating to said fault
detection analysis to a detected fault; and
adjusting a weighting associated with said parameter based upon said
Appeal 2009-012910
Application 10/979,309

3
relationship of said parameter to said detected fault.

The Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference to show
unpatentability:
Bode US 6,368,883 B1 Apr. 9, 2002

Claims 1-6, 13-17, 25, 41, and 49-54, all of the appealed claims, stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Bode.

ANALYSIS
Appellant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 25, and
41 focus on the contention that Bode does not disclose the adjusting of the
weighting of a parameter based on a relationship of the parameter with a
detected fault as claimed. According to Appellant, the Examiner has
mistakenly equated Bode’s disclosure (col. 9, l. 57-col. 10, l. 17) of the use
of a filtering procedure known as Exponentially-Weighted Moving Average
(EWMA) filtering with the claimed adjustment of parameter weighting
(App. Br. 4-6; Reply Br. 2-3). In Appellant’s view (id.), although Bode
describes (col. 10, ll. 11-13) the weighting involved in the EWMA
procedure as an adjustable parameter, such weighting is merely used to
control the amount of filtering related to the confidence of the accuracy of
data measurements, and not to the adjustment of the weight of a parameter.
Initially, we find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive, as they are not
commensurate with the scope of the rejected claims. As pointed out by the
Examiner (Ans. 8), the claims do not require the adjustment of the weighting
Appeal 2009-012910
Application 10/979,309

4
of a parameter as argued by Appellants but, instead, require only the
adjustment of weighting “associated with” a parameter. Accordingly, we
agree with the Examiner that since it is the overlay control scheme in Bode
which is using the EWMA filter, the adjusted weighting provided by the
EWMA filter is “associated with” the overlay parameter controlled by the
overlay control scheme.
We also find unpersuasive Appellant’s related argument that the
Examiner’s mapping of Bode’s disclosure to the claimed features is in error.
According to Appellant (App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 3-5), while the Examiner
has identified temperature as an ambient parameter which has a relationship
to a detected magnification fault, Bode’s EWMA filtering procedure does
not adjust the weighting of such a parameter. As explained by the Examiner
(Ans. 9), however, it is the magnification disturbance in Bode which maps to
the claimed “detected fault” and it is the magnification overlay parameter
which maps to the claimed “parameter.”
As described by Bode, the detected magnification disturbance is
impacted by changes in the magnification overlay parameter which can be
compensated for by adjusting the overlay inputs (col. 3, l. 64-col. 4, l. 6). As
previously discussed, it is Bode’s overlay control scheme which uses the
EWMA filtering procedure to weight the input data which, in accordance
with the claimed subject matter, is “associated with” the magnification
overlay parameter (col. 9, l. 57-col.10, l. 7).
In view of the above discussion, we conclude that the Examiner did
not err in finding that all of the claimed limitations are present in the
disclosure of Bode. Accordingly, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Appeal 2009-012910
Application 10/979,309

5
rejection of independent claims 1, 25, and 41, as well as dependent claims 2-
6, 13-17, and 49-54 not separately argued by Appellant, is sustained.

CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner did not
err in rejecting claims 1-6, 13-17, 25, 41, and 49-54 as anticipated under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6, 13-17, 25, 41, and 49-
54 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2009).

AFFIRMED

gvw