Ex Parte Vladimirsky et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 20, 201712898969 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 2857.2030000 4842 EXAMINER ANDERSON II, JAMES M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/898,969 10/06/2010 Yuli VLADIMIRSKY 26111 7590 06/21/2017 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. 1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20005 06/21/2017 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 YULI VLADIMIRSKY, LEV RYZHIKOV, and JAMES H. WALSH Appeal 2017-003547 Application 12/898,969 Technology Center 2400 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2017-003547 Application 12/898,969 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 4—9, 12—17, and 21—24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added): 1. An inspection system comprising: a sensor configured to detect aerial images corresponding to at least a portion of radiation reflected from a target portion of an object, the target portion comprising a regular pattern on a surface of the object, wherein each of the aerial images comprises: a first image profile corresponding to the regular pattern, the first image profile of each of the aerial images being different from each other of the first image profiles of the aerial images, and a second image profile corresponding to an irregular pattern or a contamination particle in response to the irregular pattern or the contamination particle being present in the target portion, the second image profile of each of the aerial images being similar to each other of the second image profiles of the aerial images; and an analysis device configured to: separate the first and second image profiles of each of the aerial images; and remove the first image profile from each of the aerial images so as to detect the presence of the irregular pattern or the contamination particle on the surface of the object. 2 Appeal 2017-003547 Application 12/898,969 Rejections on Appeal 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4—5, 7—9, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Guetta (US 2003/0218741 Al; published Nov. 27, 2003) and Schulze (US 2010/0198389 Al; published Aug. 5, 2010).12 2. The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Guetta, Schulze, and Ren (US 2009/0268865 Al; published Oct. 29, 2009). 3. The Examiner rejected claims 13—15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Guetta, Schulze, and Stokowski (US 7,123,356 Bl; issued Oct. 17, 2006). 4. The Examiner rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Guetta, Schulze, Stokowski, and Ren. 5. The Examiner rejected claims 21 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Guetta, Ren, and Schulze. 6. The Examiner rejected claims 22 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Guetta, Ren, Schulze, and Seki (JP 2003-172709 A; published June 20, 2003). 1 Although the Examiner originally cited Hwang (US 2004/0130710 Al; July 8, 2004) in each of the rejections in the Final Office Action (see, e.g., Final Act. 3), the Examiner replaced Hwang with Schulze in a subsequent Advisory Action. See Advisory Action mailed October 26, 2015 at 2. 2 The patentability of independent claims 9, 13,21, and 23 is not separately argued from that of independent claim 1. See App. Br. 10. Further, the patentability of claims 4—8, 12, 14—17, 22, and 24 is not separately argued from that of independent claims 1,9, 13,21, and 23. See Appeal Br. 17. Thus, except for our ultimate decision, claims 4—9, 12—17, and 21—24 are not discussed further herein. 3 Appeal 2017-003547 Application 12/898,969 Appellants ’ Contentions 1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: Guetta does not teach or suggest the claimed aerial images of independent claims 1, 9, 13, 21, and 23, as alleged by the Examiner. [Paragraphs 41 and 42 of Guetta] describe a method of scanning a surface of wafer 22 using a high-speed head 34, recording location coordinates of defects based on deviations from expected level and distribution of scattered radiation from wafer 22, illuminating surface of wafer 22 at different angles, and capturing images of a defect 24 on wafer 22 using a high- resolution optical head 36. Guetta is silent about image profiles of these captured images of defect 24. Because of these deficiencies of Guetta, the Examiner resorted to impermissible speculation about Guetta. The Examiner’s speculative comments are neither expressly nor inherently disclosed in Guetta. Moreover, Appellants are left to guess, without any guidance or explanation from the Examiner, as to how paragraph [0042] of Guetta teaches “a second image profile corresponding to an irregular pattern or a contamination particle ... , the second image profile of each of the [] images being similar to each other of the second image profiles of the [] images,” as claimed, since paragraph [0042] is silent about images, let alone image profiles and similarity between the image profiles. The only way the Examiner could have manufactured these interpretations of Guetta are based on first reading the instant specification and claims, gleaning meaning from them, then speculation Guetta could potentially teach similar aspects because these interpretations are unsupported by Guetta’s disclosure as Guetta is silent about image profiles of aerial images. 4 Appeal 2017-003547 Application 12/898,969 App. Br. 10-13, Appellants’ emphasis and citations omitted, panel’s emphasis added; see also Reply Br. 3. 2. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: Guetta teaches detecting defects and their locations on a wafer prior to capturing images of known or suspected defects in order to classify the type and size of the detected defects. Schulze teaches detecting defects after obtaining images of wafer having defects, which is opposite to Guetta’s disclosure. Moreover, as Guetta’s controller 32 analyzes the signals from detectors 40 at each spot scanned by head 34 to detect defects, Guetta’s detection of defect is based on signal processing and not image processing. Guetta only analyzes images captured by camera 42 of head 36 to classify the defects detected on the wafer surface by head 34. As such, it would not be obvious to one skilled in the art to incorporate the image processing of Schulze into Guetta, as alleged by the Examiner, as it would completely change the principle of operation of Guetta for detecting and classifying defects on substrates. Guetta discloses that “the most reliable way to detect and classify defects is to capture and analyze an image of the wafer surface, but this approach is extremely time-consuming. The diameter of current semiconductor wafers typically ranges between 20 and 30 cm, over which defects as small as 0.1 pm must be detected. Therefore, to inspect and classify defects over the entire wafer, it is necessary to scan the surface at very high resolution. This approach requires costly optics, detectors and image processors, and even with high-speed image capture and processing electronics cannot reach a level of throughput sufficient to allow all wafers in process to be inspected.” This is directly 5 Appeal 2017-003547 Application 12/898,969 opposite to Schulze’s desired way of obtaining and analyzing an image of wafer to detect defects on the wafer[.] Because Guetta provides discouragement and discredits the technology used by Schulze, Guetta teaches away from a combination with Schulze’s. App. Br. 14—15, Appellants’ emphasis and citations omitted, panel’s emphasis added; see also Reply Br. 4—5. Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. Except as noted herein, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which the appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—15); (2) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Advisory Action mailed October 26, 2015; and (3) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2—20) in response to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following. As to Appellants’ above contention 1, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Contrary to Appellants’ contention, the Examiner does not rely on unsupported speculation, but instead, relies on the express teachings of Guetta. See, e.g., Ans. 3^4. 6 Appeal 2017-003547 Application 12/898,969 More specifically, we agree with the Examiner that Guetta teaches a system that: (a) illuminates a wafer surface at different angular ranges via a set of arranged lasers; (b) captures light scattered from the wafer surface; (c) for each point on the wafer surface, compares a captured level and angular distribution of scattered radiation with an expected level and angular distribution of scattered radiation; and (d) notes significant deviations from the expected level and angular distribution of scattered radiation. See Ans. 3—4, 14 (citing Guetta Tflf 41 42). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1, we agree with the Examiner that the claimed: (a) “first image profile corresponding to the regular pattern” reads on Guetta’s captured level and angular distribution of radiation that corresponds to the expected level and angular distribution of the radiation; (b) “each of the aerial images being different from each other of the first image profiles of the aerial images” reads on Guetta’s captured images of the wafer surface when the wafer surface is illuminated at different angles; and (c) “second image profile corresponding to an irregular pattern” reads on Guetta’s captured level and angular distribution of radiation that significantly deviates from the expected level and angular distribution of the radiation. 7 Appeal 2017-003547 Application 12/898,969 See id. Neither Appellants’ claims, nor Appellants’ Specification, provides definitions for the claimed “first image profile” or “second image profile” that distinguish these limitations from the cited portions of Guetta. As to Appellants’ above contention 2, we are also not persuaded the Examiner erred. Contrary to Appellants’ contention, Guetta fails to teach or suggest that the system detects defects before capturing images of the wafer surface. Instead, as correctly found by the Examiner, while Guetta discloses that the system identifies possible defect locations before capturing images of the wafer surface, the system confirms the detection of the defect and classifies the defect after capturing high-resolution images of the wafer surface. See Ans. 17—18; see also Guetta Tflf 42-44. Thus, we conclude the combination of Guetta and Schulze would not change the principle of operation of Guetta. Further, because Guetta fails to teach or suggest that the system detects defects before capturing images of the wafer surface, we also conclude that Guetta does not teach away from a combination with Schulze. Accordingly, we conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 4—9, 12—17, and 21—24 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (2) Claims 1, 4—9, 12—17, and 21—24 are not patentable. 8 Appeal 2017-003547 Application 12/898,969 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4—9, 12—17, and 21— 24 as being unpatentable 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 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation