Ex Parte Grimberg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 20, 2016

12673775 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/673,775
69054 7590
RECHES PA TENTS
211 North Union St.
Suite 100
FILING DATE
04/12/2011
04/22/2016
Alexandria, VA 22314
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ilana Grimberg
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.
3017/09-US 1229
EXAMINER
HENSON, MISCHITA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2865
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/22/2016 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):
OREN@I-P.CO.IL
RECHES0@012.NET.IL
MAIL@I-P.CO.IL
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ILANA GRIMBERG, MICHAEL BLOOMHILL, and
SHIMON KOREN
Appeal2014-006407
Application 12/673,775
Technology Center 2800
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JON M. JURGOV AN, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.2
1 Appellants identify Camtek Ltd. as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 3.)
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Feb. 17, 2010 ("Spec."); the
Final Office Action mailed Sept. 20, 2013 ("Final Act."); the Appeal Brief
filed Jan. 19, 2014 ("App. Br."); and the Examiner's Answer mailed Mar. 7,
2014 ("Ans.").
Appeal2014-006407
Application 12/673,775
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to a depth measurements of narrow holes.
(Spec. Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1, A method for measuring a depth of a narrow hole, the
method comprising:
obtaining from a chromatic confocal sensor a group of
height measurements taken along an imaginary line that crosses
the narrow hole;
ignoring, by a computer, height measurements attributed
to optical artifacts and blind measurement points and calculating,
by the computer, an inverted parabolic estimate of a sub-group
of the height measurements;
wherein a top of the inverted parabolic estimate 1s
representative of a height of a bottom of the narrow hole.
REJECTION
Claims 1-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Marx
(US 2006/0109483 Al; iviay 25, 2006); Hill (US 2005/0128487 Al; June
16, 2005); and Marx (US 2007/0148792 Al; June 28, 2007). (Final Act. 2-
32.)
APPELLANTS' ARGUMENTS
1. Regarding claims 1, 10, and 19, Appellants argue the cited
combination of references, particularly Marx '792, fails to disclose
"calculating, by the computer, an inverted parabolic estimate of a sub-group
of the height measurements; wherein a top of the inverted parabolic estimate
is representative of a height of a bottom of the narrow hole," as recited in
claim 1. (App. Br. 14--18 citing Marx '792 i-fi-15-57, 67, 68, 71, 83; Figs. 2,
6, 8.)
2
Appeal2014-006407
Application 12/673,775
2. Regarding claims 1, 10, and 19, Appellants argue the cited
combination of references, particularly Hill, fails to disclose "ignoring, by a
computer, height measurements attributed to optical artifacts and blind
measurement points," as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 18-21 citing Hill i-fi-12,
3, 15, 17, 25, 45, 58, 69, 73, 84--86, 101, 117, 124--126.) Specifically,
Appellants argue Hill's teachings of ignoring effects of background beams
(App. Br. 19), and compensation related to astigmatism, different pixel
efficiencies, and different sizes of pinholes, are unrelated to the claimed
feature. (App. Br. 20.)
3. Regarding claims 1, 10, and 19, Appellants argue the references
should not be combined because they are based on different and
contradictory principles. (App. Br. 21-22.) In particular, Appellants argue
Marx '483's chromatic confocal sensor (CCS) and Hill's interferometric
microscope operate on different principles. In addition, Appellants argue
Marx '483 and Hill examine features on the front surface of a substrate or
wafer, whereas Marx '792 views trenches from the back side of a transparent
substrate using infrared light. (Id.)
4. Regarding claims 2, 11, and 20, Appellants assert they adequately
traversed the Examiner's findings that certain facts are well-known. (App.
Br. 23-25.) Appellants further argue Marx '792 fails to teach ''performing,
by the computer, multiple iterations of the calculating of the inverted
parabolic estimate; wherein each iteration comprises selecting a current
sub-group of height measurements that affect a current inverted parabolic
estimate in response to a previous inverted parabolic estimate" as recited in
claim 2. Specifically, Appellants argue each iteration of Marx '792's
method provides a different result for a different known height, and there is
3
Appeal2014-006407
Application 12/673,775
no selection of sub-groups, and a person of ordinary skill appreciates each
measurement or height will include using the entire data obtained. (Id.)
Appellants further argue the cited combination fails to disclose this feature,
and allege the Examiner used improper hindsight in combining the
references. (Id.) In addition, Appellants argue the combined references do
not solve the problem addressed by the Specification in relation to the small
amount of information obtained for through-silicon vias (TSV s) which can
affect the quality of height estimation, and that filtering out height
measurements can reduce the accuracy of height estimation. (Id.) In
addition, Appellants argue the references cannot be combined as in the
rejection. (Id.)
5. Regarding claims 3, 12, and 21, Appellants argue they adequately
traversed the Examiner's findings that certain facts are well-known. (App.
Br. 26.) In addition, Appellants argue the combined references do not
disclose "repeating, by the computer, the stages of calculating an inverted
parabolic estimate in response to the sub-group of the height measurements;
performing a residual analysis of the group of height measurements;
performing a residual analysis of the group of height measurements in
relation to the inverted parabolic estimate; selecting a sub-group of points
in response to the residual analysis; and jumping to the stage of
calculating," as recited in claim 3. (App. Br. 27 .) Appellants repeat for
claim 3 the argument that the combined references do not solve the problem
addressed by the Specification in relation to the small amount of information
obtained for through-silicon vias (TSV s) which can affect the quality of
height estimation, and that filtering out height measurements can reduce the
4
Appeal2014-006407
Application 12/673,775
accuracy of height estimation. (Id.) In addition, Appellants argue the
references cannot be combined as done in the rejection. (App. Br. 28.)
6. Regarding claims 4, 13, and 22, Appellants argue they adequately
traversed the Examiner's findings that certain facts are well-known. (App.
Br. 29.) Appellants argue the cited references do not disclose "repeating, by
the computer, the stages of calculating an inverted parabolic estimate in
response to the sub-group of the height measurements; performing a
residual analysis of the group of height measurements in relation to the
inverted parabolic estimate; selecting a sub-group of points in response to
the residual analysis; and jumping to the stage of calculating until an
inverted parabolic estimate fulfills an accuracy condition," as recited in
claim 4. Particularly, Appellants argue Marx '483 does not disclose
performing a residual analysis of a group of height measurements in relation
to an inverted parabolic estimate. (App. Br. 29-31 citing Marx '483 i-fi-133,
3 7.) Appellants repeat for claim 3 the argument that the combined
references do not solve the problem addressed by the Specification in
relation to the small amount of information obtained for through-silicon vias
(TSV s) which can affect the quality of height estimation, and that filtering
out height measurements can reduce the accuracy of height estimation. (Id.)
In addition, Appellants argue the references cannot be combined as in the
rejection. (App. Br. 30.)
7. Regarding claims 5, 14, and 23, Appellants argue they adequately
traversed the Examiner's findings that certain facts are well-known. (App.
Br. 32-35.) Appellants also argue the cited references do not disclose
"ignoring, by the computer, height measurements of a certain value of the
number of height measurements that have that certain value is below a
5
Appeal2014-006407
Application 12/673,775
threshold," as recited in claim 5. Particularly, Appellants argue Hill does
not provide an enabling description of what the background beams or
background signals are, and that it seems they are not related to blind
measurement points. (App. Br. 32-35 citing Hill i-fi-13, 15, 25, 45, 69, 73,
84--86, 101, and 124--126.) Appellants also argue Hill's optical
compensation, such as by introducing astigmatism, is not related to the
claimed invention. (App. Br. 33-34 citing Hill i-fi-f 17, 58, 125.) Appellants
further argue the only compensation disclosed by Hill is that an image
processor compensates for differences in pixel efficiencies and different
sizes of pinholes when processing multiple signals obtained from four
pixels. (App. Br. 34 citing Hill i-f 117 .)
ANALYSIS
Regarding argument (1 ), Appellants merely point out what the
combined references disclose, then argue this is not the claimed invention.
This type of argument is ineffective to show Examiner error. See In re
Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Appellants' contentions
"require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere
recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding
elements were not found in the prior art.").
Moreover, the Examiner indicates the claimed "sub-group" may
contain all data points of a group because neither the Specification nor
claims define what a sub-group is. The Examiner also explains that Marx
'792 teaches measuring the contour of a trenched surface using reflection
from front and back surfaces of a wafer, noting that the graphed data
correspond to an inverted parabola representative of the height from the
6
Appeal2014-006407
Application 12/673,775
bottom of a narrow hole (Ans. 4--5; Final Act. 3--4 citing Marx '792 if 71,
Fig. 5.) These findings are reasonable and we find them sufficient to
disclose the claimed "calculating" feature in the absence of distinguishing
language in the claims. Accordingly, based on a preponderance of the
evidence, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Regarding argument (2), the Examiner explains Appellants do not
define the claimed "optical artifacts and blind measurement points" other
than to argue blind measurement points are weak detection signals that can
be interpreted as very low depths, and that optical artifacts can be
represented by strong peaks. (Ans. 7 citing Spec. if 6.) Under a broadest
reasonable interpretation3, the Examiner finds "optical artifacts and blind
measurement points" are any defects or contour surface properties of the
trench that affect or influence the data during measurement. (Id.) The
Examiner notes that Hill discloses obtaining information about the depth and
width of a trench and detected defects (e.g., antisymmetric properties),
which the Examiner interprets as "optical artifacts and blind measurement
points." (Id.) The Examiner further finds one of ordinary skill would have
understood that a sensor or measurement system detects desired signals and
background signals, and the background signals (i.e. beams) may contribute
to the measured trench height data. (Ans. 7-8.) The Examiner finds the
concept of ignoring (e.g., deleting, filtering, eliminating, etc.) bad or
undesired data is not novel but instead is well-known in the art, and that Hill
teaches eliminating ("ignoring") background signals. (Ans. 8; Final Act. 3
3 Claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed.
Cir. 2004).
7
Appeal2014-006407
Application 12/673,775
citing Hill iii! 15, 25.) We agree with the Examiner's findings, and we are
not persuaded the Examiner erred in the determination that Hill, in
combination with the other references, teaches the claimed "ignoring"
feature.
Regarding argument (3), the Examiner correctly concludes the test for
obviousness is not whether features of references may be bodily
incorporated one into the other, but rather what the combined teachings of
the references suggest to the person ordinary skill. In re Keller, 642. F.2d
413 (CCPA 1981). (Ans. 8.) Also, the Examiner finds the combined
references are directed to analogous art because each is directed to
measuring trench depth. (Ans. 9 citing Marx '483 (if 12), Hill (if 3), and
Marx '792 (ifif 22, 75)). The Examiner concludes a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have a reasonable expectation that certain of their features
could be combined in a system to improve accuracy of trench height
measurements. (Final Act. 9.) Appellants provide insufficient evidence to
persuade us of error in the Examiner's findings and conclusions.
Regarding argument (4), Appellants contend they adequately traversed
the Examiner's taking of Official Notice with respect to claim 2. Our review
of the record indicates Official Notice was taken not with respect to claim 2
but with respect to claims 9, 18, and 27, none of which are argued in this
Appeal. Thus, we do not reach this issue either in this argument or in
subsequent arguments where it is raised.
Appellants' arguments that Marx '792's iterations provide different
results for different known heights, and no selection of sub-groups (App. Br.
24--25), is dispelled by the Examiner's finding that a "sub-group" may include
all data for a particular measurement. (Ans. 4--5.) Also, as previously noted,
8
Appeal2014-006407
Application 12/673,775
merely pointing out what the references disclose and stating the claims are
different is ineffective to show Examiner error. See Lovin, supra.
Regarding improper hindsight (App. Br. 24), the Examiner correctly
concludes that any judgment on non-obviousness is in a sense necessarily a
reconstruction based on upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into
account only the knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include
knowledge gleaned only from Appellants' disclosure, such a reconstruction
is proper. (Ans. 11 citing In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392 (CCPA 1971).)
Aside from the bare assertion the Examiner engages in hindsight, Appellants
provide no evidence in support of their contention. This is insufficient to
prove Examiner error.
Appellants further argue Marx '438, Hill, and Marx '792 do not solve
the problem addressed by the invention as disclosed by the Specification in
relation to the small amount of information obtained for through-silicon vias
(TSV s) which can affect the quality of height estimation, and that filtering
out height measurements can reduce the accuracy of height estimation.
(App. Br. 25.) As previously found, Marx '438, Hill, and Marx '792, like
the claimed invention, are directed to accurately measuring trench depth,
which can be regarded as the same general problem. See KSR Int'!. Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007)(any need or problem known in the
field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can
provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed). As the
Examiner explained, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
the desirability of repeating a measurement process and filtering noise in the
data to increase measurement accuracy. (App. Br. 12.) Moreover, as the
9
Appeal2014-006407
Application 12/673,775
Examiner further explains, use of patents as references is not limited to what
the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which
they are concerned, as they are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all
they contain. (Ans. 11-12 citing In re Heck, 699 F. 2d 1331, 1332-33 (Fed.
Cir. 1983)(quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CCPA 1968));
MPEP § 2123. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument.
In addition, Appellants argue the references cannot be combined as
the Examiner proposes. This argument was addressed previously with
respect to argument (3), and we find it unpersuasive of Examiner error.
Regarding argument ( 5), Appellants' contentions are largely repetitive
with those previously addressed. In particular, Appellants argue the
Examiner's taking of Official Notice was not proper, which does not impact
any of the claims argued on appeal. As previously found, the Examiner
showed the references are directed to the same general problem as
Appellants' Specification. (See analysis of argument (4)). Furthermore, we
are not persuaded the Examiner errs in combining the references. (See
analysis of argument (3).)
Appellants further argue the cited references do not teach ''performing
a residual analysis of the group of height measurements in relation to the
inverted parabolic estimate" and "selecting a sub-group of points in
response to the residual analysis," as recited in claim 3. The Examiner
pointed to Marx '483, claim 10, as teaching this feature. (Final Act. 5---6.)
Other than to recite the language of claim 3, Appellants provide no
explanation to support the contention that the Examiner's finding is in error.
Accordingly, we find this argument unpersuasive. See Lovin, supra.
10
Appeal2014-006407
Application 12/673,775
Regarding argument ( 6), Appellants present contentions previously
addressed, specifically, that the Examiner improperly takes Official Notice,
that the references do not address the same problem as disclosed in
Appellants' Specification, and that the references should not be combined.
The first argument is not relevant to any claim argued on appeal, and we
disagree with the remaining arguments for reasons previously explained.
Regarding the claimed ''jumping to the stage of calculating until an
inverted parabolic estimate fulfills an accuracy condition" recited in claim
4, the Examiner finds this feature naturally flows from repeating the
measurement process and applying the mathematical model of Marx '483,
Hill, and Marx '792. (Final Act. 7.) Appellants merely quote the claim
language and disclosure without providing an explanation of why the
Examiner's finding is allegedly erroneous. Accordingly, we do not find this
argument persuasive. See Lovin, supra.
Regarding argument (7), the Official Notice issue is not relevant to
any claim argued on appeal. In addition, Appellants argue the cited
references do not disclose "ignoring, by the computer, height measurements
of a certain value of the number of height measurements that have that
certain value is below a threshold," as recited in claim 5. This argument is
coextensive with argument (2), and we find it unpersuasive for similar
reasons. As the Examiner found, the concept of ignoring (e.g. deleting,
filtering, eliminating, etc.) bad or undesired data is not novel, but instead is
well-known in the art, as evidenced by Hill's teaching of eliminating the
effects of certain background signals. (Ans. 8 citing Hill i-f 15.) The
Examiner found that filtering-out or eliminating background signal is
11
Appeal2014-006407
Application 12/673,775
understood to use a threshold. (Id.) Appellants do not rebut this finding,
and we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's Decision to reject claims 1-27
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
12