Ex Parte Wright et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 26, 201412896149 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STA 1ES p A 1ENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/896,149 10/01/2010 60838 7590 08/29/2014 LNG/KLA 1 Joint Customer Number C/O Luedeka Neely Group, P.C. P.O. BOX 1871 KNOXVILLE, TN 37901 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Michael J. Wright UNITED STA TES 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. 64782.Dl 9084 EXAMINER NGUYEN, SANGH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2886 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/29/2014 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): Rick@TheBamesHome.com pto-email@Lng-patent.com docketing@luedeka.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL J. WRIGHT, ROBERT W. WALSH, DANIELL. BELIN, and DAVID S. ALLES Appeal2012-008081 Application 12/896,149 Technology Center 2800 Before CHUNG K. PAK, DONNA M. PRAISS, and CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges. PAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision2 finally rejecting claims 1 through 7, which are all of the claims pending in the above-identified application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The subject matter on appeal "generally relates to reticle inspection," and in particular, "an auto focus system for reticle inspection." (Spec. 1, i-f [0002].) 1 The real party in interest is said to be KLA-Tencor Corporation. (See Appeal Brief filed October 24, 2011 ("App. Br.") at 2.) 2 Final Office Action mailed May 25, 2011. Appeal2012-008081 Application 12/896,149 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'l Details of the appealed subject matter are recited in representative claim 1 _, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief: 1. An apparatus comprising: an image capture device to capture one or more images of a reticle; and a logic to focus a lens of the image capture device, wherein the logic is to focus the lens based on a topographical map comprising previously-stored height measurements Z of an upper surface of the reticle associated with X and Y coordinates of the reticle. (App. Br. 8 (emphasis added).) Appellants seek review of the following grounds of rejection maintained in the Examiner's Answer mailed January 26, 2012 ("Ans."): 1. Claims 1through3, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Ferranti (US Patent Application Publication 2004/0121069 Al published June 24, 2004) in view oflddan (US Patent 6,765,606 Bl issued on July 20, 2004); 2. Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ferranti in view oflddan and Phan (US Patent 6,809,793 Bl published October 26, 2004); and 3. Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ferranti in view oflddan and Caldironi (US Patent 6,645,231 Bl issued November 11, 2003). (App. Br. 3.) 3 Appellants rely on the same arguments advanced in connection with the rejection of claim 1 for the patentability of dependent claims 4 and 5. (App. Br. 6.) Therefore, for purposes of this appeal, we focus on claim 1 to determine the propriety of the Examiner's§ 103 rejections of record. 2 Appeal2012-008081 Application 12/896,149 IL DISCUSSION Upon consideration of the evidence of the record, we concur with Appellants that the Examiner has not carried the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness regarding the subject matter recited in claims 1 through 7 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting aprimafacie case ofunpatentability."); In re Jung 637 F.3d 1356, 1365---66 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that while "the applicant must identify to the Board what the examiner did wrong, ... the examiner retains the burden to show invalidity"). In particular, the Examiner has not demonstrated that the collective teachings of Ferranti and Iddan would have suggested "a logic to focus a lens of the image capture device ... based on a topographical map comprising previously-stored height measurements Z of an upper surface of the reticle associated with X and Y coordinates of the reticle" as recited in claim 1.4 (Compare App. Br. 4-6 with Ans. 6 and 8-10.) Figure 3 of Ferranti illustrates detectors 326 and 354 identified by the Examiner as image capturing devices, together with processing units 325 and 345, to capture three and two-dimensional topographical maps, respectively in a memory 304 for the purpose of utilizing such maps to eliminate or remove a defect area on a photomask or reticle surface. (Ferranti 5-6, i-fi-1 [0062-0065].) As acknowledged by the Examiner, Ferranti does not teach or suggest a logic to focus 4 The remaining prior art references, Phan and Caldironi, are relied upon by the Examiner to show obviousness of employing specific features in dependent claims 4 and 5. They are not relied upon to show the limitation "a logic to focus a lens of the image capture device ... based on a topographical map comprising previously- stored height measurements Z of an upper surface of the reticle associated with X and Y coordinates of the reticle" in claim 1. 3 Appeal2012-008081 Application 12/896,149 a lens of at least one of the detectors identified by the Examiner as an image capturing device based on previously stored three and/or two-dimensional topographical maps. (Ans. 6.) Although the Examiner relies upon Iddan to show obviousness of using Ferranti's scanning beam processing unit 345 as a logic to focus a lens of detector 345 for capturing a two-dimensional topography map based on previously stored topographical maps, we concur with Appellants that the portions of Iddan referred to by the Examiner provide no apparent reason to use such processing unit as a logic to focus a lens of a detector for capturing a two- dimensional topography map based on earlier captured topographical maps having height measurements of its upper surface. (Compare App. Br. 5-6 with Ans. 6 and 8-10.) Accordingly, for the reason expressed in the Appeal Brief and above, Appellants have convinced us of reversible error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness regarding the subject matter recited in appealed claims 1 through 7 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). III. ORDER In view of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 through 7 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) is REVERSED. REVERSED tc 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation