Ex Parte Vladimirsky et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2017

12898969 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2017)

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