Ex Parte Bomholt et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 28, 201612692000 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016) 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. 12/692,000 01/22/2010 Lars Bomholt SYNP 0440-5 1928 36454 7590 12/30/2016 SYNOPSYS, INC. C/O HAYNES BEFFEL & WOLFELD LLP P.O. BOX 366 HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019 EXAMINER JONES, HUGH M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2128 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/30/2016 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): docket @ hmbay .com pair_hbw @ firsttofile. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LARS BOMHOLT, JIM CHALMERS, and WOLFGANG FICHTNER Appeal 2016-002077 Application 12/692,000 Technology Center 2100 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection of claims 1 through 8, 10 through 18, 20, and 21. We reverse. INVENTION Appellants’ invention relates to a method for use with a technology computer aided design simulation model of a process, which predicts, in dependence upon a plurality of process input parameters, a value for a performance parameter of a product to be manufactured using the process. Abstract. Appeal 2016-002077 Application 12/692,000 Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below: 1. A manufacturing process method, comprising the steps of: providing a computer system having a processor and memory and programmed with a simulation model of a manufacturing process, the simulation model when executed by the computer system predicting, in dependence upon a plurality of process input parameters, a value for a performance parameter of a product to be manufactured using the manufacturing process; providing to the computer system an actual value for the product performance parameter of the product actually fabricated during a particular run of the manufacturing process; the computer system estimating, in dependence upon the simulation model and in dependence upon the actual value for the product performance parameter, past values for a calculated subset of the process input parameters that actually existed for the particular run prior to said estimating, the estimated values for the calculated subset of the process input parameters being usable for yield management, the estimated values including at least one non-measured or non-measurable parameter of the product. REJECTIONS AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 5, 8, 10 through 15, 18, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as unpatentable over Pasadyn et al. (US 6,017,849 Bl; July 12,2005). Ans. 2.1 The Examiner has rejected claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pasadyn and Saxena et al. (US 2004/0064296 Al; Apr. 1,2004). Ans. 2. 1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief filed May 6, 2015, Reply Brief filed December 7, 2015, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed on October 7, 2015. 2 Appeal 2016-002077 Application 12/692,000 ISSUES Appellants argue, on pages 5 through 10 of the Appeal Brief and pages 1 through 8 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 12 is in error. The dispositive issue presented by these arguments is whether the Examiner erred in finding Pasadyn teaches estimating a past value for a subset of the process input parameters for a particular run that existed prior to the estimating, where the estimation is based upon a simulation model using input parameters and actual performance parameters for the particular run, as recited in each of the independent claims? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We agree with Appellants’ contention that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent clams 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The Examiner, in response to Appellants’ arguments, states that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “actual values” includes values that are assumed based upon equipment settings. Answer 3^4. Further, the Examiner finds that Pasadyn teaches a simulation model which is based upon input parameters and that the simulation model is updated using actual performance values to generate a feedback, which meets the disputed limitation. Answer 4—5. We agree with the Examiner’s findings that Pasadyn teaches using a simulation model which is updated based upon actual performance parameters, but we disagree with the Examiner that this meets the claim. We do not consider the Examiner to have shown that the 3 Appeal 2016-002077 Application 12/692,000 updated simulation model is updated using an actual performance parameter for the same production run in which the input parameter is estimated. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 12, or claims 2 through 5, 8, 10, 11, 13 through 15, 18, 20, and 21 similaraly rejected. The Examiner has not shown that the additional teachings of Saxena, used in the rejection of claims 6, 7, 16, and 17, make up for the deficiency in the rejection of claims 1 and 12. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 for the same reasons as claims 1 and 12. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 5, 8, 10 through 15, 18, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 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). REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation