Ex Parte Bills et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 29, 201311311943 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RICHARD EARL BILLS, NEIL JUDELL, TIMOTHY R. TIEMEYER, and JAMES PETER MCNIVEN ____________ Appeal 2010-009428 Application 11/311,943 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, DENISE M. POTHIER, and DAVID C. MCKONE, Administrative Patent Judges. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 7-10, 12, 16, 17, 20-24, 51, 52, and 56-59. Claims 3-6, 11, 13-15, 18, 19, 26-50, and 53-55 have been canceled, and claim 25 has been allowed. App. Br. 2; Ans. 6.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed December 18, 2009, and the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed March 22, 2010. Appeal 2010-009428 Application 11/311,943 2 Invention Appellants’ invention relates to a surface inspection system for a workpiece, such as a semiconductor wafer. See Spec. 1:12-13. Claim 1 is reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized and bracketing added: 1. An optical collection system for use in a surface inspection system for inspecting a surface of a workpiece, the surface inspection system having an incident beam projected through a back quartersphere and toward a desired location on the surface of the workpiece to impinge on the surface to form a reflected beam that extends along a light channel axis in a front quartersphere and to form scattered light having a haze scatter portion, comprising a portion of the scattered light attributable to haze, and a defect scatter portion, comprising a portion of the scattered light attributable to defects on the surface, the incident beam and the light channel axis forming an incident plane, the optical collection system comprising: [a] a light channel collector positioned in the incident plane in the front quartersphere to receive the reflected light, [b] a center collector disposed above the surface and centered over the desired location between the front quartersphere and the back quartersphere, [c] first and second wing collectors positioned to collect a first portion of the scattered light, the wing collectors disposed in the front quartersphere, outside the incident plane, and at a minimum in the haze portion relative to the defect scatter portion when the incident beam is P-polarized, wherein the first and second wing collectors are disposed outside of the incident plane, with one each of the wing collectors disposed on either side of the incident plane, and are located symmetrically with respect to the incident plane, and are equidistant from the desired location; and [d] first and second back collectors positioned in the back quartersphere for collecting a second portion of the scattered light, wherein the first and second back collectors are disposed outside of the incident plane, with one each of the back collectors disposed on either side of the incident plane, and are located symmetrically with respect to the incident plane. Appeal 2010-009428 Application 11/311,943 3 The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Fossey US 6,292,259 B1 Sept. 18, 2001 Bevis US 2004/0246476 A1 Dec. 9, 2004 The Rejection Claims 1, 2, 7-10, 12, 16, 17, 20-24, 51, 52, and 562-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fossey and Bevis. Ans. 3-6. THE CONTENTIONS Regarding illustrative claim 1, the Examiner finds that Fossey teaches various collectors, including a light channel collector, a collector disposed in the front quartersphere and outside the incident plane, and a back collector positioned in the back quartersphere. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner states that Fossey does not teach the wing collectors disposed symmetrically and outside the incident plane as recited, for which Bevis is cited. Ans. 4, 7-9. Appellants argue that Fossey and Bevis discuss collectors disposed in the front and back quarterspheres and in a central location but fail to teach or suggest both the recited number and locations of the collectors. App. Br. 6-9. Appellants admit the combined references teach the light channel and center collectors as recited in elements [a] and [b], but contend neither cited reference teaches the collectors with all the limitations of elements [c] and [d]. App. Br. 8. Appellants assert that the combination teaches one front collector, one back collector, and five center collectors. App. Br. 8-9. 2 We presume that the Examiner mistakenly including canceled claim 55 in the rejection’s heading. Ans. 3. Appeal 2010-009428 Application 11/311,943 4 ISSUES Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Fossey and Bevis collectively would have taught or suggested: (1) first and second wing collectors disposed in the front quartersphere and outside the incident plane to collect a first portion of the scattered light? (2) first and second wing collectors positioned in the back quartersphere and outside the incident plane for collecting a second portion of the scattered light? ANALYSIS Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, which calls for two wing collectors disposed in the front quartersphere and two wing collectors positioned in the back quartersphere. The Examiner admits that Fossey does not teach the wing collectors as recited and turns to Bevis in combination with Fossey to meet these limitations. Ans. 3-4. Appellants mainly contend that Bevis teaches that collectors 40, 42, 44, and 46 are center collectors disposed between the front and back quarterspheres and in a central arc along the substrate. App. Br. 8. We disagree. Figure 8 of Bevis shows four collectors (40, 42, 44, 46) located above substrate 10. Bevis, ¶ 0028; Fig. 8. Bevis further discusses that collectors 40 and 46 may be located at an azimuthal angle on opposite sides of a plane of incidence, such as in the angle from about 75° to 105°. Ans. 7-8 (citing Bevis, ¶ 0105; Fig. 8). Similarly, collectors 42 and 44 in Bevis are taught to be located at an azimuthal angle of about 30° to 60° on opposite sides of the Appeal 2010-009428 Application 11/311,943 5 incident plane. See id. Given this teaching, we find that Bevis’ collectors (e.g., 40, 42, 44, 46) are all located outside the incident plane as recited. Additionally, these angles are described as azimuthal angles. Bevis, ¶ 0105. An “azimuth” is defined as “horizontal direction expressed as the angular distance between the direction of a fixed point (as the observer’s heading) and the direction of the object.”3 Thus, in the context of Bevis, the azimuthal angle is the angle in a horizontal direction between a fixed point (e.g., the center of the specimen 10 which lies on the plane of incidence) and the direction of the collectors. Given this understanding, collectors 42 and 44 are located between thirty (30) and sixty (60) degrees in the horizontal direction from the incident plane on opposing sides of the incident plane and collect light scattered forwardly from the specimen. See Bevis, ¶ 0105. These collectors are thus disposed in a front quartersphere and on opposing sides of the incident plane as recited. Bevis further teaches collectors 40 and 44 are located between seventy-five (75) and 105 degrees in the horizontal direction. See id. While collectors between seventy-five (75) and ninety (90) degrees are not disposed in the back quartersphere, collectors located at angles greater than ninety (90) and up to 105 degrees are. Bevis also teaches these collectors are intended to collect light scattered backwardly. See id. We thus find that Bevis suggests embodiments where two collectors are positioned in the back quartersphere for collecting a second portion of scattered light and on opposing sides of the incident plane. Contrary to Appellants’ contentions 3 Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary (11th ed.), available at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/azimuth (last visited April 12, 2013). Appeal 2010-009428 Application 11/311,943 6 (App. Br. 8-9) and as the Examiner finds (Ans. 8), Bevis’ collectors 40, 42, 44, and 46 are therefore not center collectors along a central arc above the substrate. Given all these teachings, Bevis teaches and suggests a collector arrangement where two wing collectors are disposed in the front quartersphere on opposing side, outside of the incident plane, and positioned to collect a first portion of the scattered light and two wing collectors are positioned in the back quartersphere on opposing sides and outside the incident plane for collecting a second portion of the scattered light as recited in claim 1. Lastly, the Examiner finds that Fossey in combination with Bevis teaches or suggests all the limitations in elements [c] and [d]. Ans. 3-4, 7-8. Appellants merely point out what elements [c] and [d] in claim 1 recite and then assert that prior art fails to teach these limitation. See App. Br. 9. This mere assertion is not considered a separate argument for patentability and does not sufficiently rebut the Examiner’s findings and conclusion. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2, 7-10, 12, 16, 17, 20-24, 51, 52, and 56-59 not separately argued with particularity. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 7-10, 12, 16, 17, 20-24, 51, 52, and 56-59 under § 103. Appeal 2010-009428 Application 11/311,943 7 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 7-10, 12, 16, 17, 20-24, 51, 52, and 56-59 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). AFFIRMED babc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation