Ex Parte Knippels et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 3, 2016

13764406 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/764,406 02/11/2013
909 7590 10/05/2016
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP
PO Box 10500
McLean, VA 22102
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Guido Martinus Henricus KNIPPELS
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.
026734-0420286 5265
EXAMINER
HAN, JONATHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2818
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/05/2016 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):
docket_ip@pillsburylaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte GUIDO MARTINUS HENRICUS KNIPPELS,
HANS PETER CHALL, IVO LIBERTUS ADRIANUS MARIA PULLENS,
and GARRIT WILLEM UBINK1
Appeal2015-003324
Application 13/764,406
Technology Center 2800
Before CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, A VEL YN M. ROSS, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a method of scribing a
semiconductor substrate using a laser. E.g., Spec. i-f 2; Claim 1. Claim 1 is
reproduced below from page 13 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief:
1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is ASM
TECHNOLOGY SINGAPORE PTE. LTD. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-003324
Application 13/764,406
1. A method of scribing a substantially planar substrate comprising
semiconductor material along at least one scribeline parallel to a
major surface of the substrate, comprising:
projecting a laser beam onto the major surface, a point of
impingement of the beam constituting a light spot, the substrate
being positioned with respect to the laser beam such that the light
spot is disposed proximal to the scribeline;
causing relative motion of the substrate with respect to the laser
beam, such that the light spot is caused to translate substantially
along the scribeline,
whereby localized energy is transferred from the laser beam to
the substrate along the course of the scribeline;
monitoring a position of the light spot with respect to the
scribeline by:
illuminating at least a portion of the major surface proximal to
the light spot using a flash of light, produced during the relative
motion;
capturing an image of the portion during the illumination and
including the light spot, using an image recording device;
analyzing the image and determining momentary position
information for the light spot relative to the scribeline; and
using the momentary position information to regulate a setpoint
for a position of the laser beam relative to the substrate.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
1. Claims 1-3 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Shamoun (US 2010/0155379 Al, published June 24, 2010).
2. Claims 4--6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shamoun in view ofManens et al. (US 2009/0314751 Al,
published Dec. 24, 2009).
2
Appeal2015-003324
Application 13/764,406
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Shamoun anticipates claim 1. Ans. 2.
Shamoun, like the Appellants' Specification, discloses a method of scribing
a substrate with a laser. E.g., Shamoun i-f 2. Shamoun appears to guide the
scribing laser by analyzing its distance from already-scribed features. See,
e.g., Shamoun i-f 5 ("The disclosed methods and systems can be used to
detect lines scribed .... "), i-f 6 ("[A] method for measuring a position of at
least one scribed feature .... "), i-f 8 (discussing illumination "so as to
determine a position of at least one scribed feature on the workpiece"); see
also App. Br. 7 (listing paragraphs in Shamoun indicating Shamoun's
concern with already-scribed features).
The Examiner appears to recognize that Shamoun focuses on features
that have already been scribed (etched). See Ans. 9. The Examiner,
however, appears to construe the term "scribeline," appearing in claim 1, to
include already-etched features. Id. The Examiner concludes that "the
claims do not require such an order of steps, but merely that a scribe line is
etched and a laser beam is utilized to position the scribe line regardless of
after or before etching." Id.; see also Final Act. 6. Thus, the Examiner finds
that Shamoun' s process falls within the scope of claim 1, notwithstanding
the fact that Shamoun's scribing laser is guided by already-etched features.
We are not persuaded by the Examiner's rationale. Claim 1 recites
"[a] method of scribing ... along at least one scribeline." The scribing laser
of claim 1 is guided by analyzing the position of the light spot of the laser
"relative to the scribeline." See Claim 1. The Specification expressly
defines the term "scribeline" to mean "a (real or abstract) line extending
along a major surface of a substrate, along which line the substrate is to be
3
Appeal2015-003324
Application 13/764,406
scribed." Spec. if 14 (emphasis added). Thus, contrary to the Examiner's
determination that "the scribeline can be ... an already etched scribeline,"
see Final Act. 6, the term "scribeline" as used by the Appellants does not
encompass already-scribed features; it contemplates the line that "is to be
scribed" (emphasis added).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Shamoun's method of guiding
the path of the scribing laser by comparison of the path of the laser to
already-scribed features falls within the scope of claim 1, which requires
analyzing the position of the laser (as indicated by the light spot of the laser)
relative to the line that "is to be scribed," Spec. if 14, i.e., the "scribeline."
Because the Examiner has not adequately established that Shamoun
teaches the recited feature of "analyzing the image and determining
momentary position information for the light spot relative to the scribeline,"
we cannot sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 1. Because
claims 2-7 depend from claim 1 (directly or indirect! y), and the Examiner's
rejection of those claims does not remedy the error identified above, we
likewise cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-7.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7.
REVERSED
4