Boguslaw A. Swedek et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 27, 2020

14322686 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2020)

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.
14/322,686 07/02/2014 Boguslaw A. Swedek 009942USAC8/05542-0627004 5816
26185 7590 02/27/2020
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (APPLIED MATERIALS)
P.O. BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
EXAMINER
TURK, NEIL N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1798
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2020 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):
PATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BOGUSLAW A. SWEDEK, DOMINIC J. BENVEGNU, and
JEFFREY DRUE DAVID

Appeal 2019-000009
Application 14/322,686
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 27 to 46. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Applied
Materials, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-000009
Application 14/322,686

2
Appellant’s invention is directed to a computer implemented method
that includes selecting two or more reference spectra to determine an
endpoint of a chemical mechanical polishing process (Spec. 1:14–15; 2:17–
18; Claims 27, 35).
Claim 35 is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
35. A computer program product encoded in a non-transitory
machine-readable medium, the product comprising instructions
operable to cause a processor to:
store a reference spectrum, the reference spectrum
representing a spectrum resulting from reflection of white light
from a reference substrate;
receive a plurality of measured spectra from an optical
sensor for each sweep of a plurality of sweeps of the optical
sensor across a substrate undergoing polishing, each measured
spectrum of the plurality of measured spectra for each sweep
being a spectrum resulting from reflection of white light from
the substrate undergoing polishing;
for each sweep of the plurality of sweeps, determine a
difference between each measured spectrum of the plurality of
measured spectra obtained in the sweep and the reference
spectrum to generate a plurality of differences for each sweep;
for each sweep of the plurality of sweeps, select a
difference from the plurality of differences for the sweep based
on a comparison of magnitudes of the plurality of differences,
thus generating a sequence of selected differences; determine a
polishing endpoint based on the sequence of selected
differences;
and cause polishing of the substrate to halt at the
polishing endpoint.

App. Br. 19–20 (Claims Appendix).

Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 27–46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite.
Appeal 2019-000009
Application 14/322,686

3
2. Claims 35, 38, 41, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as unpatentable over Bibby, Jr. (US 2002/0155789 Al, published
October 24, 2002).
3. Claims 27, 31–33, 36, 37, 40, 42, 43, 45, and 46 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bibby Jr. in view
of Chen (US 2003/0053042 Al, published March 20, 2003).
4. Claims 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bibby Jr. in view of Chen, and Yang
(6,153,116, issued November 28, 2000).
5. Claims 30, 39, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bibby Jr. in view of Chen, and Du-Nour (US
6,885,467 B2, issued April 26, 2005).

FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. §112, ¶ 2
The Examiner determines that the independent claims 27, 35, and 41
recite “cause polishing of the substrate to halt at the polishing endpoint” is
indefinite because the claims do not require any sort of polishing
operation/process so as to provide a particular halting thereof coincident
with a polishing endpoint (Ans. 3–4). The Examiner finds that to “receive a
plurality of current spectra . . . for each sweep of a plurality of sweeps . . .”
renders the claim indefinite because “such reception of current spectra is
undefined with respect to “each sweep of a plurality of sweeps” as the
claims do not necessitate any such sweeps by an optical sensor and thereby
such “determin[ation] of a polishing endpoint” is indefinitely defined at
Appeal 2019-000009
Application 14/322,686

4
present as such step relies on the indefinitely defined sweeps.” (Ans. 4). The
Examiner finds that the claims do not provide a link which gives basis to the
step of “cause polishing of the substrate to halt at the polishing endpoint”
because there is no polishing of a substrate being monitored in accordance
with receiving and comparing the spectra to the reference spectra (Ans. 4).
Regarding claim 34, the Examiner finds that it is unclear how the
particular processor instructions relate to zones of a substrate and sweeps
thereof (or sweeps relating beyond such zones). (Ans. 4). The Examiner
finds that the claims are indefinitely defined in providing particular
processor instructions that allow assessment of particular zones of the
substrate because the claims do not require a substrate undergoing polishing
that being swept and assessed (Ans. 4–5).
In assessing whether a claim is indefinite, we determine whether those
skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in
light of the specification. Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc.,
806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the present case, claims 27, 34, 35,
and 41 are directed to a computer program encoded in non-transitory
machine-readable medium, not a polishing process. Claim 27 recites
“receiv[ing] a plurality of current spectra from an optical sensor for each
sweep of a plurality of sweeps of the optical sensor across a substrate
undergoing polishing.” Claim 35 recites to “receive a plurality of measured
spectra from an optical sensor for each sweep of a plurality of sweeps of the
optical sensor across a substrate undergoing polishing.” Claim 41 recites to
“receive a measured spectrum from an optical sensor for each sweep of a
plurality of sweeps of the optical sensor across a substrate undergoing
polishing.” Contrary to the Examiner’s findings, each of the independent
Appeal 2019-000009
Application 14/322,686

5
claims requires an optical sensor to receive the current spectrum or spectra
for each pass of the optical sensor across a substrate undergoing polishing.
See, claims 27, 35, and 41. The Specification describes that the optical head
53 receives light reflected from the substrate to create a spectrum that is used
in the computing device to determine an endpoint of the polishing process
(Spec. 12:12–30). Figure 5 shows that a series of light flashes 501 to 510
moves across the substrate 10 via optical head 53 (Spec. 12:1–10). The
series of light flashes 501 to 510 can be used to determine a spectrum for the
reflected light which is received via the optical head 53 (Spec. 12:12-20).
The Specification describes that the optical sensor acquires spectrum data
from the light flashes that are applied during the sweep of the substrate by
the optical sensor. The Specification further describes the intensity of the
spectrum data is subtracted from the intensity of a reference spectrum and
the difference is used to determine a trace which used in determining an
endpoint for the polishing (Spec. 17). In our view, one of ordinary skill in
the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of
the Specification.
We reverse the Examiner’s § 112, second paragraph, rejection.

35 U.S.C. §102
The Examiner finds that Bibby Jr. anticipates the subject matter of
independent claims 35 and 41. The Examiner finds that Bibby Jr.’s use of a
least squares fit for the spectrum data in paragraphs 26 and 27 would meet
the following claim limitations: “for each sweep of the plurality of sweeps,
select a difference from the plurality of differences for the sweep based on a
comparison of magnitudes of the plurality of differences, thus generating a
Appeal 2019-000009
Application 14/322,686

6
sequence of selected differences” (claim 35), and “for each sweep of the
plurality of sweeps, select a difference from the plurality of differences for
the sweep based on a comparison of magnitudes of the plurality of
differences, thus generating a sequence of selected differences” (claim 41)
(Ans. 5–6, 15).
Appellant argues that Bibby Jr. does not teach determining a
difference for each sweep and selecting a difference from the plurality of
differences for the sweep (App. Br. 8, 9, 11). Appellant argues that Bibby
Jr.’s least squares fit uses a line fit to the data points to determine an
endpoint trigger, but the trigger time is not a selected difference value
(Reply Br. 2). Appellant contends that the least squares regression line is
not used to find the best one among the current data (Reply Br. 3).
Appellant argues that the least squares regression analysis is not used to
select a difference from the plurality of differences as required by the claims
(Reply Br. 3). We agree.
The Examiner has not established within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §
102 that Bibby Jr.’s least squares fit analysis includes selecting difference
from a plurality of differences to generate a sequence of selected differences
as recited in claims 35 and 41. The least squares fit analysis may involve
taking a difference and squaring it, but that is done for each data point in the
analysis. The Examiner has not shown where Bibby Jr. teaches to select a
difference from among the plurality of differences and generate a sequence
of selected differences.
On this record, we reverse the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of claims
35, 38, 41, and 45 over Bibby Jr.

Appeal 2019-000009
Application 14/322,686

7
35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner rejects independent claim 27 under § 103(a) as obvious
over Bibby Jr. in view of Chen. The Examiner relies on Bibby Jr.’s
paragraphs 26, and 27 to teach “determining the smallest difference between
the current spectrum and reference spectrum of a plurality of reference
spectra to generate a plurality of differences as represented by Equation 1”
(Ans 7-8). The Examiner finds that Bibby Jr. does not teach generating a
sequence of smallest differences (or additionally next to smallest or median
as in claims 36 and 42) and determining a polishing endpoint based on the
sequence of smallest differences (Ans. 8). The Examiner finds that Chen
generates a spectrum difference value for each scan cycle according to an
equation in paragraph 21 and therefore generates a sequence of smallest
difference to calculate endpoint parameter calculation as disclosed in Chen’s
paragraph 22 (Ans. 8). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to generate a sequence of smallest differences to determine a
polishing endpoint because Chen illustrates that the process of generating a
sequence of smallest differences repeated several times in order for a
computer to monitor the planarization process (Ans. 8).
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not shown where Bibby Jr. or
Chen disclose selecting the best-matching reference spectrum from the
plurality of reference spectra where the best-matching reference spectrum
has a smallest difference of the plurality of differences (App. Br. 12-13).
Appellant contends that the Examiner has not even addressed the claim
limitation that requires selecting the best-matching reference spectrum from
the plurality of reference spectra and thus fails to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness (App. Br. 12).
Appeal 2019-000009
Application 14/322,686

8
The Examiner finds that Bibby Jr. teaches selecting the best-matching
selection and Chen further teaches generating a sequence of smallest
differences is utilized in a repeated fashion to monitor the polishing endpoint
and planarization process in a sensitive and accurate manner (Ans. 17).
We have reviewed the portions of Chen and Bibby Jr. cited by the
Examiner and we cannot find where either reference teaches “select[ing] a
best-matching reference spectrum from the plurality of reference spectra, the
best-matching reference spectrum having a smallest difference of the
plurality of differences, thus generating a sequence of best matching
reference spectra” as required by claim 27. Bibby Jr. teaches preforming a
least squares regression on the totality of the data and fitting a regression
line to the data (Bibby Jr. ¶¶ 26, 27). Chen calculates the difference in the
absolute value of a detected spectrum and a reference spectrum for each
wavelength reflected back from a point on the workpiece (¶ 18). Chen sums
the absolute values of the spectrum differences over a selected range of
wavelengths and calculates a time-based endpoint parameter therefrom
(¶ 18). Chen’s paragraphs 21 and 22 exemplify the paragraph 18 disclosure
of the Chen’s general process.
We do not find and the Examiner has not explained how or where
Chen teaches to select a best-matching reference spectrum having the
smallest differences from the calculated differences in a sweep and then
generate a sequence of best matching reference spectra using the selected
reference spectrum. Bibby Jr. and Chen appear to teach simply calculating
differences for all the data points acquired and then assessing the data to
determine an endpoint. The Examiner has not met the initial burden of
showing where Bibby Jr. and Chen teach or would have suggested
Appeal 2019-000009
Application 14/322,686

9
“select[ing] a best-matching reference spectrum from the plurality of
reference spectra, the best-matching reference spectrum having a smallest
difference of the plurality of differences, thus generating a sequence of best
matching reference spectra” as required by claim 27.
On this record, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s § 103
rejection over Bibby Jr. in view of Chen.
The Examiner’s § 103 rejections of dependent claims 28 and 29 over
Bibby Jr. in view of Chen and Yang and the § 103 rejection of claims 30, 39,
and 45 over Bibby Jr. in view of Chen and Du-Nour do not rely on Yang or
Du-Nour to cure any of the above noted deficiencies. Therefore, we reverse
the § 103 rejections over Bibby Jr. in view of Chen and Yang and Bibby Jr.
in view of Chen, and Du-Nour for similar reasons.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis Prior Art  Affir
med
Reversed
27–46 § 112, ¶ 2

27–46
35, 38, 41, 44 §102(b) Bibby Jr. 35, 38, 41, 44
27, 31–33, 36,
37, 40, 42, 43,
45, 46
§ 103(a) Bibby Jr., Chen 27, 31–33, 36, 37,
40, 42, 43, 45, 46
28, 29 § 103(a) Bibby Jr., Chen,
Yang
28, 29
30, 39, 45 § 103(a) Bibby Jr., Chen,
Du-Nour
30, 39, 45
Overall
Outcome
27–46

REVERSED