Ex Parte Bills et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2013

11311943 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2013)

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