Ex Parte Wright et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 26, 2014

12896149 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2014)

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