Ex Parte Cramer et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 30, 201613047185 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 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. 13/047,185 03/14/2011 Hugo Augustinus Joseph CRAMER 2857.1410001 6360 26111 7590 12/30/2016 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. 1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20005 EXAMINER ALHIJA, SAIF A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2128 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/30/2016 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 HUGO AUGUSTINUS JOSEPH CRAMER and PATRICIUS ALOYSIUS JACOBUS TINNEMANS Appeal 2016-000951 Application 13/047,185 Technology Center 2100 Before JASON V. MORGAN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1—12 and 14—20. Final Act. 1, 3; Br. 15. Claim 13 was objected to as dependent on a rejected base claim. Final Act. 1, 6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE and enter NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION. Appeal 2016-000951 Application 13/047,185 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed invention relates to modeling methods that can be used to manufacture devices with lithographic techniques and apparatuses. Spec. 12. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: measuring, with a metrology tool, a parameter of a target; determining, with a model of the metrology tool, an uncertainty level of the measured parameter of the target, the model comprising an uncertainty level source; and reporting the value of the measured parameter, with the corresponding uncertainty level, in a metrology tool output for the target. REFERENCE Ye US 7,488,933 B2 Feb. 10, 2009 REJECTION Claims 1—12 and 14—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Ye.1 Final Act. 3. ANALYSIS Ye discloses modifying an optical model and a resist model based on measurements, for example, of aerial images and printed resist patterns. Ye, Abstract, 7:21—35. Appellants argue that Ye does not disclose the limitations 1 The Advisory Action indicates that claim 17 is allowable, but the rejection of claim 17 was not withdrawn in the Answer. Advisory Action 2 (July 29, 2014); Ans. 2. 2 Appeal 2016-000951 Application 13/047,185 of “determining, with a model of the metrology tool, an uncertainty level . . and “the model comprising an uncertainty level source” recited in claim 1. Br. 8—12. According to Appellants, Ye discloses a metrology tool to improve the model of its lithography process, but does not model its metrology tool to report an uncertainty level of the tool’s measurements. Id. at 9. Appellants further argue that the cited portions of Ye appear to take each of its measured values as authoritative. Id. at 11. In responding to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner finds that, in Ye, the differences between measured or simulated values could represent an uncertainty source, such as pattern metrics or optical aberrations. Ans. 2—3. The Examiner, however, does not explain how such differences constitute an uncertainty source for a model of Ye’s metrology tool, rather than for its lithography process. Id. We agree with Appellants that the cited portions of Ye do not disclose using a model of a metrology tool to report an uncertainty level for measurements by that tool. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. Claims 16 and 17 recite corresponding limitations. Claims 2—12, 14, 15, and 18—20 incorporate through dependency the limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, we also do not sustain the rejections of claims 2—12 and 14—20. NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50, we newly reject claims 1—12, 14—16, and 18—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Ye and U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0278493 Al; published Nov. 13, 2008 to Zion (“Zion”). 3 Appeal 2016-000951 Application 13/047,185 Zion is prior art to this Application under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Claims 1 and 16 The differences between Ye and claims 1 and 16 are that, as discussed above, Ye does not disclose determining, with a model of the metrology tool, an uncertainty level of the measured parameter of the target, the model comprising an uncertainty level source; and reporting the value of the measured parameter, with the corresponding uncertainty level. See pages 3 and 5 of the Final Action for Ye’s disclosure of the other limitations of claims 1 and 16. Zion teaches determining and reporting the uncertainties for metrology tool measurements. Zion Abstract. Zion explains that it “is well understood in the field of metrology . . . [that] all measurements have some uncertainty associated therewith” and “this uncertainty may play an important role in determining whether a part or process is suitable for use, must be further inspected, of must be discarded.” Id. at | 6. Zion further teaches a need in the art to know the “tolerances associated with such readings, and the uncertainty surrounding the measurements.” Id. at 17. And Zion teaches that “every measurement has some associated error.” Id. at 122. Accordingly, Zion teaches determining and reporting, with the measurements, distributions or uncertainty bars representing the uncertainty in the measurements. Id. at H 32 and 35. Zion also teaches various uncertainty sources. Id. at|25. The combination of Ye and Zion teaches or suggests claims 1 and 16. Ye teaches a metrology tool to make measurements and the use of modeling 4 Appeal 2016-000951 Application 13/047,185 to provide estimates. Final Act. 3, citing Ye Fig. 6, 10:40-45.2 As discussed, Zion teaches the value of determining and reporting uncertainty levels in a metrology tool’s measurements and further teaches various uncertainty sources. Zion || 6, 22, 25, 32, and 35. Zion also teaches the “accurate estimation” of error. Id. at || 22, 23. These references combined teach or suggest determining and reporting uncertainty levels for measurements by a metrology tool and using a model to provide estimates of those uncertainty levels from various uncertainty sources. An ordinarily skilled artisan would combine Ye and Zion because Ye is directed to the use of a metrology tool and Zion teaches important considerations regarding data reported by such a tool. Final Act. 3, citing Fig. 6, 10:40-45; Zion H 6, 22, 25, 32, and 35. Claim 3 In addressing the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3, Appellants argue that Ye does not disclose detector noise, positioning errors, and numerical errors and, thus, does not disclose the limitation of “wherein the uncertainty level source comprises at least one of detector noise, positioning errors, and numerical errors.” Br. 12—13. The combination of Ye and Zion, however, teaches or suggests the limitation. The Answer sets forth how Ye discloses detector noise, positioning errors, and numerical errors. Ans. 3. Appellants do not present any persuasive arguments or evidence indicating any error in those findings. Br. 12—13. In addition, Zion teaches that uncertainty arises from the accuracy of the tool, which is dependent on noise. Zion 125. Claims 11 and 18 2 The Final Action expressly cites 9:40-45, but the cited text actually appears at 10:40-45. 5 Appeal 2016-000951 Application 13/047,185 In addressing the Examiner’s rejections of claims 11 and 18, Appellants argue that Ye does not disclose “filtering the measured parameter based on the reported uncertainty level” because the alleged filtering in Ye concerns the optical model, not the model of the metrology tool. Br. 13—15. This argument is not applicable to the new rejection, which no longer relies on Ye disclosing by itself a model of the metrology tool. Claims 1—12, 14—16, and 18—20 Except as otherwise indicated above, for our new grounds of rejection of claims 1—12, 14—16, and 18—20, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and rationales for rejecting these claims set forth in the Final Action and the Answer. Claims 13 and 17 Our new grounds of rejection do not encompass claims 13 and 17, which the Examiner indicates, respectively, would be allowable if written in independent form and is allowable. Final Act. 6; Advisory Action 1 (Jan. 27, 2015). DECISION We reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1—12 and 14—20. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50, we newly reject claims 1—12, 14—16, and 18—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Ye and Zion. This Decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” Section 41.50(b) also provides: 6 Appeal 2016-000951 Application 13/047,185 When the Board enters such a non-final decision, the appellant, within two months from the date of the decision, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution will be remanded to the examiner. The new ground of rejection is binding upon the examiner unless an amendment or new Evidence not previously of Record is made which, in the opinion of the examiner, overcomes the new ground of rejection designated in the decision. Should the examiner reject the claims, appellant may again appeal to the Board pursuant to this subpart. (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The request for rehearing must address any new ground of rejection and state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new ground of rejection and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing is sought. Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1214.01. 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 37 C.F.R, $ 41.50(b) 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation