Ex Parte Seong

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 28, 2019

14596650 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/596,650 01/14/2015
530 7590 04/01/2019
LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG,
KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK
600 SOUTH A VENUE WEST
WESTFIELD, NJ 07090
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Siho Seong
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.
CPMC 3.0F-004 (E) 1015
EXAMINER
DANG, PHILIP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2019 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):
eOfficeAction@ldlkm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SIHO SEONG 1
Appeal2018---007098
Application 14/596,650
Technology Center 2400
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, SHARON PENICK, and
RUSSELL E. CASS, Administrative Patent Judges.
CASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-7, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. Appeal Br. 1-12. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ). We reverse.
1 Appellant lists CORNING PRECISION MATERIALS CO., LTD. as the
real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed March 2, 2018 ("Appeal Br.") 2.
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner's positions and Appellant's arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above mentioned Appeal Brief, as well as the
following documents for their respective details: the Final Action mailed
July 7, 2017 ("Final Act."); the Examiner's Answer mailed April 30, 2018
("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed July 2, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2018---007098
Application 14/596,650
THE PRESENT APPLICATION
The present application is directed to a device for inspecting an edge
portion of a substrate, such as a glass substrate used in a flat panel display.
Abstract; Spec. ,r 2. The Specification explains that when a substrate is
machined, the edges may be chamfered to make the edge portions round to
protect them from being damaged. Spec. ,r 2. After the chamfering process,
the substrate is inspected to determine whether a defect exists at the edge
portion and to inspect the width of the chamfered portion. Id. ,r 3.
The invention provides an apparatus for inspecting an edge portion
that uses a single device that measures a chamfered width on an edge portion
of a substrate, and avoids the use of coaxial illumination, which can interfere
with the ability to precisely measure the chamfered width. Id. ,r,r 9, 16-17.
The device includes first and second right-angled prisms above and below
the edge portion with inclined surfaces directed toward the upper and lower
surfaces of the edge portion, a light that irradiates the edge portion, and a
photographing part adjacent to the edge that takes images of the upper and
lower surfaces of the edge from light that has passed through the first and
second right-angled prisms, as well as of the end surface of the edge.
Abstract.
2
Appeal2018---007098
Application 14/596,650
Claim 1 illustrates the claims at issue:
1. An apparatus for inspecting an edge portion of
a substrate, comprising:
a first right-angled prism disposed above an edge
portion of a substrate such that an inclined surface
thereof is directed toward an upper surface of the
edge portion of the substrate;
a second right-angled prism disposed below the
edge portion of the substrate such that an inclined
surface thereof is directed toward a lower surface
of the edge portion of the substrate;
a lighting part directly irradiating the edge portion
of the substrate with light; and
a photographing part disposed adjacent to the edge
portion of the substrate, wherein the photographing
part takes an image of the upper surface of the
edge portion of the substrate from light that has
passed through the first right-angled prism, an
image of the lower surface of the edge portion of
the substrate from light that has passed through the
second right-angled prism, and an image of an end
surface of the edge portion of the substrate;
wherein the lighting part is disposed on a side of
the edge portion of the substrate.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims Appendix).
THE REJECTIONS AND CONTENTIONS
Claims 1, 2, and 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Swanson (US 5,298,939; issued March 29, 1994) in view
of Kono (US 7,795,886 B2; issued September 14, 2010).
3
Appeal2018---007098
Application 14/596,650
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Swanson and Kono, and further in view of Schell
(US 6,434,087 Bl; issued August 13, 2002).
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Swanson and Kono, and further in view of Amitai
(US 2010/0202048 Al; published August 12, 2010).
In determining the claims are unpatentable, the Examiner primarily
relies on Swanson, which discloses a system for transferring a reticle
(photomask) pattern onto a substrate by scanning. Final Act. 2-5; see also
Swanson, Abstract. More particularly, the Examiner relies on the disclosure
associated with Figure 3a of Swanson (Final Act. 3-5), which is reproduced
below:
Figure 3a of Swanson is a schematic illustration of the projection lens
located between the reticle 201 and the substrate 203, having two optical
relays stacked together. Swanson 5:49-52, 7:27-39. The Examiner finds
that Swanson's Figure 3a discloses the limitations of claim 1 requiring "a
first right-angled prism disposed above an edge portion of a substrate such
that an inclined surface thereof is directed toward an upper surface of the
edge portion of the substrate" (prisms 317 and 324 and substrate 203 in Fig.
4
Appeal2018---007098
Application 14/596,650
3a) and "a second right-angled prism disposed below the edge portion of the
substrate such that an inclined surface thereof is directed toward a lower
surface of the edge portion of the substrate" (prisms 322 and 329 and
substrate 203 in Fig. 3a). Final Act. 3.
Appellant argues that Swanson fails to teach, inter alia, a second
right-angled prism disposed below the edge portion of the substrate. Appeal
Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 3. Appellant argues, that in fact, "Swanson fails to
disclose any prism disposed 'below the edge portion of the substrate,"' and
that Swanson instead teaches that "all of the prisms 317, 322, 324, and 329
are positioned above the substrate 203." Appeal Br. 6 ( emphasis in
original).
In response, the Examiner acknowledges that "prisms 317, 322, 324,
and 329 in [] Fig. 3a of Swanson are positioned above the substrate 203,"
but reasons that "this is just one of many embodiments in the Swanson
reference" and that Swanson "teaches that the substrate in his system can be
moved in all three x, y, and z directions." Ans. 12-13 (citing Swanson,
col. 5, 11. 31--44; col. 10, 11. 58-62; col. 14, 11. 4-8; col. 15, 11. 25-29).
ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellant that the record does not support the
Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-7. The cited portions of
Swanson do not teach or suggest "a second right-angled prism disposed
below the edge portion of the substrate such that an inclined surface thereof
is directed toward a lower surface of the edge portion of the substrate," as
claim 1 requires. Instead, and as the Examiner acknowledges, the relied-
upon portions of Swanson disclose prisms (Figure 3a, elements 317, 322,
5
Appeal2018---007098
Application 14/596,650
324, and 329) that are all located above the substrate (203 in Figure 3a). See
Ans. 12.
We also disagree with the Examiner's finding that the cited portions
of Swanson teach or suggest an embodiment in which the substrate is moved
into a position above any of the right angled prisms 317, 322, 324, and 329
in Figure 3a of Swanson. The portions of Swanson cited by the Examiner
merely disclose moving the reticle and/or substrate in the right and left (X
and Y) directions for alignment and scanning purposes, and moving the
substrate in the vertical (Z) direction to adjust the focus of the lenses on the
substrate. See Swanson, col. 5, 11. 29--48 (the chuck holding the substrate is
moved in the "left and right" directions to align the substrate to the reticle
and in the Z (vertical) direction to adjust "any errors in focus"); col. 10,
11. 58-62 (substrate chuck "is moved in Z by the focus actuators" and "is
moved laterally by the substrate stage 608 relative to the reticle stage 602
which carries the reticle"); col. 14, 11. 4--8 (the reticle and substrate can
"move in the X, Y plane dependently or independently"); col. 15, 11. 25-29
( the chuck is coupled to the substrate such that it can move in the Z direction
"controlled by the focus actuators" in order to correct for bouncing motion,
which "would detrimentally affect image focus").
None of the portions of Swanson cited by the Examiner teach or
suggest moving the substrate into a position in which one right-angled prism
is disposed above an edge portion of the substrate, and a second right-angled
prism is disposed below the edge portion of the substrate, as claim 1
requires. Nor has the Examiner articulated a reason why a person of
ordinary skill would have been motivated to move the substrate to such a
position.
6
Appeal2018---007098
Application 14/596,650
Accordingly, Appellant has demonstrated error in the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claim 1. We, therefore, reverse the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2 and 5-7, which depend from claim 1.
With respect to the remaining rejections of dependent claims 3 and 4,
the Examiner does not rely on either of the additionally cited references to
cure the deficiency of the obviousness rejection explained above. See Final
Act. 9-11. We, therefore, reverse the Examiner's rejections of these claims
for the reasons set forth above in relation to claims 1, 2, and 5-7.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-7 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(f).
REVERSED
7