Ex Parte Choi et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 14, 201613056623 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/056,623 61507 7590 Entropy Matters LLC P.O. Box 2250 03/13/2011 NEW YORK, NY 10021 10/14/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Sun Yong Choi 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. 5222-22401/P2910US 5379 EXAMINER HUANG, FRANK F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2485 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 10/14/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SUNYONG CHOI, YEONHO PAE, and ELLIS CHANG Appeal2015-006855 Application 13/056,623 Technology Center 2400 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is KLA-Tencor Corp. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2015-006855 Application 13/056,623 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' invention relates generally to classifying defects detected in a memory device area on a wafer. Abstract. Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows: 1. A computer-implemented method for classifying defects detected in a memory device area on a wafer, comprising: using a computer system to perform the following steps: determining positions of inspection data acquired for the memory device area by an inspection system, wherein the memory device area comprises different types of blocks, and wherein the inspection data comprises data for defects detected in the memory device area; determining positions of the defects with respect to a predetermined location within the blocks in which the defects are located based on the positions of the inspection data; and classifying the defects based on the positions of the defects within the blocks. Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). References Tsuji US 5,716,889 A Feb. 10, 1998 Kulkarni US 2007/0156379 Al July 5, 2007 Rejection on Appeal Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kulkarni, in view of Tsuji. 2 Appeal2015-006855 Application 13/056,623 Issues on Appeal Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief2 and Reply Brief present us with the following issues: 1. Does the combination of Kulkarni and Tsuji teach or suggest "determining positions of the defects with respect to a predetermined location within the blocks in which the defects are located based on the positions of the inspection data," as recited in independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in independent claims 21 and 22? 2. Does the combination of Kulkarni and Tsuji teach or suggest "wherein said classifying comprises determining a ratio of the numbers of the defects detected in at least two of the different types of blocks and classifying the defects in the at least two of the different types of blocks based on the ratio," as recited in claim 9? 3. Does the combination of Kulkarni and Tsuji teach or suggest "monitoring a ratio of the numbers of the defects detected in at least two of the different types of blocks," as recited in claim 1 O? 2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action (mailed Aug. 28, 2014, "Final Act."), Appellants' Appeal Brief (filed Dec. 22, 2014, "Appeal Br.") and Reply Brief (filed July 19, 2015, "Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed May 20, 2015, "Ans."), and the original Specification (filed Jan. 8, 2011, "Spec."). 3 Appeal2015-006855 Application 13/056,623 ANALYSIS Unless otherwise indicated, we agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner's findings and reasons as set forth in the Final Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-7) and the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2- 21 ). For emphasis, we highlight specific arguments and findings as follows. Issue 1 Appellants argue Tsuji does not teach or suggest a predetermined location within blocks in a memory device area, as claimed. 3 See Appeal Br. 6-9; see also Reply Br. 2-5. In particular, Appellants argue Tsuji merely discloses one alignment mark within a device region and does not teach or suggest more than one alignment mark within the device region. See Appeal Br. 6. Since Tsuji does not teach or suggest more than one alignment mark within the device region, as argued by Appellants, Tsuji does not teach or suggest an alignment mark within blocks in a memory device area. See id. More specifically, as argued by Appellants, the one alignment mark can only be located within one block in a memory device area, and cannot be located within multiple blocks in the memory area. See id. Appellants further argue Tsuji does not teach or suggest that the alignment mark in the device region has any predetermined location with respect to a memory device area or any one of multiple blocks in the memory device area. See Appeal Br. 6-7. Appellants additionally argue 3 Appellants also argue, and the Examiner concedes, that Kulkarni does not teach or suggest a predetermined location, as claimed. See Appeal Br. 5; see also Ans. 5. 4 Appeal2015-006855 Application 13/056,623 Tsuji does not teach or suggest that the alignment mark is located in any blocks in a memory device area in the device region. See Appeal Br. 7. The Examiner finds Kulkarni teaches a memory device area comprising different types of blocks and further teaches determining positions of defects with respect to a predetermined alignment site in which the defects are located. See Ans. 3--4 (citing Kulkarni i-fi-f 189, 221, 223, 227, 543). The Examiner further finds Tsuji discloses an alignment mark within a device region, and Tsuji's alignment mark teaches a predetermined location within a block. See Ans. 5 (citing Tsuji col. 4, 11. 1-60). The Examiner additionally finds it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the memory device area of Kulkarni to determine positions of defects with respect to an alignment mark within a device region, as taught by Tsuji, to gain the benefit of an increased number of devices manufactured per wafer. See id. In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner further finds: claim 1 does not require more than one predetermined location within the blocks of the memory device area; and, the location of the alignment mark is known when the device is manufactured, and thus, the location of the alignment mark is predetermined. See id. 12-14. Also, in response to Appellants' argument that Tsuji's alignment mark is not located in any blocks in a memory device area in the device region, the Examiner noted that Tsuji was solely relied on to teach a predetermined location, while Kulkarni was relied on to teach the blocks of the memory area and to further teach determining positions of defects within the blocks. See id. 15-16. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. We disagree with Appellants that claim 1 requires multiple predetermined locations within the 5 Appeal2015-006855 Application 13/056,623 blocks of a memory device area, and we agree with the Examiner that the claim only requires at least one predetermined location within the blocks. In light of the Examiner's finding that Kulkarni teaches a memory device area comprising different types of blocks and further teaches determining positions of defects with respect to a predetermined alignment site in which the defects are located, and in light of the Examiner's finding that Tsuji teaches an alignment mark within a device region (where the location of the alignment mark is predetermined), we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Kulkarni and Tsuji teaches or suggests "determining positions of the defects with respect to a predetermined location within the blocks in which the defects are located based on the positions of the inspection data," as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combination of Kulkarni and Tsuji. We further sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2-8 and 11-20, which are not argued separately. Issue 2 Appellants argue Kulkarni discloses determining a ratio of the number of patterns of interests (POis) in which a defect was detected to a total number of PO Is inspected on a wafer. See Appeal Br. 11 (citing Kulkarni i-f 514). Therefore, as argued by Appellants, the ratio disclosed in Kulkarni is different than the ratio recited in claim 9, as claim 9 recites a ratio of the number of defects detected in different types of blocks. See id. We agree with Appellants that the ratio disclosed in Kulkarni is different than the ratio recited in claim 9, as Kulkarni discloses a ratio of a number of PO!s in 6 Appeal2015-006855 Application 13/056,623 which a defect was detected to a total number of PO ls, whereas claim 9 recites a ratio of a number of defects detected in one type of block to a number of defects detected in another type of block. See Kulkarni i-f 514. Further, the Examiner has failed to establish that Tsuji cures the deficiency of Kulkarni. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Issue 3 Appellants' arguments regarding claim 10 are similar to the arguments raised regarding claim 9 (i.e., the ratio disclosed in Kulkarni is different than the ratio recited in claim 10). See Appeal Br. 13. We agree with Appellants that the ratio disclosed in Kulkarni is different than the ratio recited in claim 10, for the reason previously described with respect to claim 9. Further, as also previously described, the Examiner has failed to establish that Tsuji cures the deficiency of Kulkarni. Thus, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8 and 11-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation