Ex Parte Balan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2016

11958201 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111958,201 12/17/2007 AVIVBALAN
83600 7590 11/23/2016
JDI Patent- KLA-Tencor Corp, Joint Customer Number
Joshua D. Isenberg/ JDI Patent
809 Corporate Way
Fremont, CA 94539
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.
KLA-P2404/US 1700
EXAMINER
LIU, CHIA HOW MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2882
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/23/2016 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):
josh @jdipatent.com
jessica@jdipatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte A VIV BALAN1
Appeal2015-005240
Application 11/958,201
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON i\.PPEi\L 2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1, 3-19, and 22-25. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as KLA-Tencor Corporation.
Appeal Br. 2.
2 In our opinion below, we reference the Specification filed Dec. 1 7, 2007
(Spec.), Final Office Action mailed Feb. 5, 2014 (Final), the Appeal Brief
filed Dec. 12, 2014 (Appeal Br.), the Examiner's Answer mailed Feb. 20,
2015 (Ans.), and the Reply Brief filed Apr. 15, 2015 (Reply Br.).
Appeal2015-005240
Application 11/958,201
The claims are directed to a substrate processing system including
first and second chucks mounted side-by-side on a stage in a line parallel to
an axis translation of the relative movement between the stage and a
processing head (see, e.g., claim 1 ), and a substrate processing method in
which first and second substrates are disposed on the first and second chucks
and both substrates scanned in a serpentine manner by moving the stage and
processing head moved relative to one another (see, e.g., claim 19).
Figures 1 and 2 show an embodiment of the system and are
reproduced below:
101
Figure 1 is a top view of an embodiment of
Appellant's multiple-chuck system
2
Appeal2015-005240
Application 11/958,201
101
Figure 2 is a side view of the multiple-chuck
system of Figure 1
Claim 1, with the key limitation at issue in the appeal emphasized, is
further illustrative of the claimed apparatus:
1. A substrate processing system [ 100], comprising:
a stage [106];
first and second chucks [104, 102] mounted on the stage
[106], wherein the first and second chucks [104, 102] are
adapted to hold first and second substrates [ 116, 114 (as shown
in Fig. 2)], wherein the first and second chucks [104, 102] are
adapted to move independently with respect to a [sic] first and
second vertical axes [Z, Z'], respectively, while applying a force
to retain the first and second substrates [ 116, 114] respectively
as the first and second substrates [ 116, 114] are processed; and
at least one processing head [122 (Fig. 2)] positioned
proximate the stage [ 106] adapted to process the first and
second substrates [116, 114],
3
Appeal2015-005240
Application 11/958,201
wherein the stage [ 106] and the processing head [ 122] are
configured for relative movement for a sufficient distance for
the processing head [122] to process both the first and second
substrates [116, 114], wherein the first and second chucks [104,
102] are mounted side by side on the same stage [l 06] along a
line parallel to an axis translation of the relative movement
between the stage and the processing head [X-direction],
wherein the relative movement [serpentine pattern 109] is
configured such that processing of the first substrate [ 116] starts
before processing of the second substrate [ 114] starts and the
processing of the second substrate [ 114] is started before the
processing of the first substrate [ 116] is complete,
wherein the first and second chucks [ 104, 102] are
adapted to rotate independently with respect to the first and
second vertical axes [Z, Z'], respectively, for independent
angular alignment of the first and second chucks [104, 102] and
substrates [ 116, 114].
Claims Appendix, Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis added).
The Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a):
A. The rejection of claims 1and3-18 as obvious over Ockwell3 in
view ofLoopstra4 and Wihl5; and
B. The rejection of claims 19 and 22-25 as obvious over Wihl in view
of Ockwell and Loopstra.
3 Ockwell, US 2006/0092399 Al, published May 4, 2006.
4 Loopstra et al., US 5,969,441, issued Oct. 19, 1999.
5 Wihl et al., US 5,572,598, issued Nov. 5, 1996.
4
Appeal2015-005240
Application 11/958,201
Rejection A
OPfNION
For the rejection of claims 1 and 3-18 as obvious over the
combination of Ockwell, Loopstra, and Wihl, the dispute centers on the
requirement in claim 1 that "the first and second chucks [be] mounted side
by side on the same stage along a line parallel to an axis translation of the
relative movement between the stage and the processing head." Compare
Appeal Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 8-9 with Final 2--4; Ans. 2-3. Thus, we select
claim 1 as representative for resolving the issue on appeal. The issue is:
Has Appellant identified a reversible error in the Examiner's finding of a
suggestion within Ockwell and Wihl for aligning Ockwell' s chucks in the
parallel arrangement of claim 1 "for the purpose of efficiently processing the
first and second substrates"? Compare Final 4; Ans. 2-3 with Appeal Br. 6-
8; Reply Br. 10-12.
Appellant has not identified such a reversible error.
As found by the Examiner, Ockwell discloses a substrate processing
system (Fig. 1) including first and second chucks (10, 20) mounted side-by-
side on the same stage. Final 2; Ockwell i-f 43. In Figure 2, as further found
by the Examiner, this alignment is shown along a line (IV-IV).
There is no dispute that Ockwell's two-wafer arrangement shown in
Figure 2 is not arranged "along a line parallel to an axis translation of the
relative movement between the stage and the processing head" as recited in
claim 1. Compare Final 4 with Appeal Br. 7. Appellant illustrates the chuck
arrangement of Ockwell' s Figure 2 embodiment alongside their Figure 1
embodiment as follows:
5
Appeal2015-005240
Application 11/958,201
10 2.6
Appellant's image depicts two top views, the left image showing Ockwell's
locations 10, 20 at an angle relative to the relative movement (path with
arrows), the right image showing Appellant's two chucks 102, 104 parallel
to the relative movement
The Examiner finds that Wihl teaches mounting first and second
subareas (Fig. 3 at 33, 35) side-by-side on the same stage (Fig. 1 at 12) along
a iine (X) paraiiei to an axis transiation (in X) of the reiative movement
between the stage and the processing head (16). Final 4. The Examiner
concludes that "it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to have the line of Ockwell be parallel to an axis translation of the relative
movement between the stage and the processing head, as taught by Wihl, for
the purpose of efficiently processing the first and second substrates." Id.
There is no dispute that Wihl teaches scanning subareas on a single
substrate rather than scanning multiple substrates. Compare Final 4 with
Appeal Br. 7.
Appellant contends that none of the individual references disclose or
suggest placing multiple chucks in the arrangement of claim 1, but
Appellant's arguments fail to take into account the knowledge and
6
Appeal2015-005240
Application 11/958,201
perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. It would be improper for us to
consider the teachings of the prior art so narrowly. Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733
F.3d 1355, 1362---63 (Fed. Cir. 2013). "[T]he test for combining references
is not what the individual references themselves suggest but rather what the
combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of
ordinary skill in the art." In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA
1971 ). It is well established that "it is not necessary that the inventions of
the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention
under review." In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Ockwell is not limited to positioning two wafers in two comers as
shown in Figures 2 and 3(a), but also teaches positioning "any plurality of
substrates disposed at any respective plurality of exposable locations," for
example, four 3 inch wafers on an 8 inch substrate table, four 6 inch wafers
on a 12 inch substrate table, etc. Ockwell i-f 44. Thus, Ockwell alone would
have suggested placing the chucks holding the substrates side-by-side in two
rows on the substrate, which would result in first and second chucks located
along the x-axis.
Wihl conveys the concept of scanning multiple subareas, such as
individual die on a substrate, in a serpentine fashion and comparing the data
from one die to another die. Wihl, col. 10, 11. 24--41. Whether the dies are
located on a single wafer as taught by Wihl or located on separate wafers,
the method of scanning the dies would accomplish the same result of
comparing data derived from one die to data from another die. "The
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int 'l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
7
Appeal2015-005240
Application 11/958,201
Appellant has not identified a reversible error in the Examiner's
finding of a suggestion within the prior art for mounting the chucks of
Ockwell in the required parallel side-by-side arrangement.
Rejection B
To reject claims 19 and 22-25, the Examiner again relies upon the
combination of Wihl's teaching of scanning in a serpentine movement over
subareas (individual die) and Ockwell's teaching of disposing first and
second substrates on first and second chucks. Final 7-8. Appellant does not
argue any claim apart from the others. We select claim 19 as representative.
Claim 19 is directed to a substrate processing method. There is no
dispute that Wihl teaches moving a stage and processing head in the
serpentine manner required by claim 19, nor that Ockwell teaches disposing
first and second substrates on first and second chucks mounted on the same
stage as further required. Compare Final 7-8 with Appeal Br. 8-9.
Appellant contends that the Examiner's combination would require a
substantial reconstruction and design of the invention of Wihl as well as a
change in the basic principle of Wihl' s operation, which Appellant
characterizes as the inspection of operator-defined target subareas of a single
substrate with several subareas on a stage. Appeal Br. 9. But, we agree with
the Examiner that whether the two areas being inspected are subareas on a
single wafer or areas on two different wafers, the principle of operation is
substantially the same: two areas are inspected and data from one compared
to data from the other. Ans. 4--5. Moreover, the combination of references
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the devices needed
to accomplish the process when using two substrates including two chucks
as taught by Ockwell.
8
Appeal2015-005240
Application 11/958,201
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner's rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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 ).
AFFIRMED
9