Ex Parte Choi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 14, 2016

13056623 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2016)

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