Ex Parte Hiroi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 18, 2012

10062666 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/062,666 02/05/2002 Takashi Hiroi 501.41125X00 4688
20457 7590 10/19/2012
ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP
1300 NORTH SEVENTEENTH STREET
SUITE 1800
ARLINGTON, VA 22209-3873
EXAMINER
BERMAN, JACK I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2881
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/19/2012 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 TAKASHI HIROI, MASAHIRO WATANABE, ASAHIRO KUNI,
MAKI TANAKA, MUNENORI FUKUNISHI, HIROSHI MIYAI,
YASUHIKO NARA, and MITSUNOBU ISOBE,

Appeal 2010-0076601
Application 10/062,666
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and CARL W.
WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Hitachi, Ltd of Japan. (App. Br. 1.)
Appeal 2010-007660
Application 10/062,666

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 3, 5, 6, 10-16, and 20-37. Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, and 17-19
have been canceled. (App. Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method for displaying in a map format on a
screen an image of an extracted defect in a substrate pattern during the
fabrication thereof. (Spec. 1, ll. 3-7, Spec. 13, l. 16-spec. 14, l. 1, Figs. 4 and
8.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 5 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:
5. A defect candidate image displaying method, comprising the
steps of:
irradiating either a charged particle or a light on a surface of a
substrate on which a pattern is formed;
producing an image of said substrate surface by detecting any
of a reflected light, secondary electron, reflected electron, transmitted
electron, or absorbed electron generated from said substrate as a result
of the irradiation;
producing a digital image by subjecting the produced image
signal to A/D conversion;
comparing the digital image with a reference image and
extracting defect candidates of said substrate surface;
outputting actual images of the extracted defect candidates of
said substrate surface and data including the location of the defect
candidates of said substrate surface, via either a storage medium or a
Appeal 2010-007660
Application 10/062,666

3
network;
storing said outputted actual images of the extracted defect
candidates of said substrate surface and data including the location of
the defect candidates;
displaying on a screen in a map format the defect candidates
location data outputted via either said storage medium or network; and
displaying on said screen a selected one of the stored actual
images of the extracted defect candidates of said substrate surface
which is designated on said screen among the extracted defect
candidates data displayed in said map format on said screen so that the
selected one of the stored actual images of the extracted defect
candidates of said substrate surface is displayed together with
said map format on said screen without revisiting said substrate
surface and the designated defect candidate of said substrate surface to
produce an actual image of the designated defect candidate of said
substrate surface.

Prior Art Relied Upon
Worster US 5,963,314 Oct. 5, 1999
Mizuno US 6,047,083 Apr. 4, 2000
Gallarda US 6,539,106 B1 Mar. 25, 2003

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
1. Claims 3, 5, 6, 12-16, and 25-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Mizuno
and Worster.
Appeal 2010-007660
Application 10/062,666

4
2. Claims 10, 11, and 20-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Mizuno, Worster,
and Gallarda.

ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the corrected Appeal Brief, pages 12-20 and the Reply Br. 1-6.
Representative Claim 5
Dispositive Issue: Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Mizuno and Worster teaches or suggests
displaying in a map format on a screen a selected one of a plurality of actual
images of stored defects, as recited in claim 5?
Appellants argue that the proffered combination does not teach the
disputed limitations emphasized above. (App. Br. 12-17, Reply Br. 3-6.) In
particular, Appellants argue that while Mizuno discloses storing an SEM
image and representations of the images along with associated defect
candidates extracted therefrom, such represented symbol designations are
not actual images of the extracted defect candidates, as required by the
claim. (Reply Br. 4.)
In response, the Examiner finds that Mizuno’s disclosure of
displaying a stored SEM image containing thereon defects extracted after an
image comparison teaches the disputed limitations. (Ans. 6.)
Based upon our review of the record, we agree with the Examiner’s
underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness
Appeal 2010-007660
Application 10/062,666

5
regarding claim 5. In particular, Mizuno discloses storing an SEM image
along with the defects contained thereon after comparing the SEM image
with a reference image. The SEM image including the defects thereon is
subsequently displayed on a screen in a map format. (Col. 5, ll. 27-32, col. 6,
ll. 42-44.) The defects are then classified and the result of the classification
is specified on the map, and then stored in a database. (Col. 6, ll. 53-58.)
We find that because the defects detected as part of the comparison are an
integral part of the SEM image, Mizuno’s disclosure of storing and
displaying the image also teaches that the defects thereon are stored and
similarly displayed on the map. We further find Mizuno’s disclosure of
storing the representations of the defects or the locations thereof in the
database at least suggests representations of such defects are extracted from
the SEM image. We are therefore satisfied that the combination of Mizuno
and Worster teaches the disputed limitations. It follows that Appellants have
not shown error in the Examiner’s conclusion that the proffered combination
renders claim 5 unpatentable.
Claims 3, 6, 12-16, and 25-37, not argued separately, fall therewith.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Regarding claims 10, 11, and 20-24, Appellants allege that Gallarda
does not cure the noted deficiencies of the Mizuno-Worster combination.
(App. Br. 18-19.) As discussed above, we find no such deficiencies in the
proffered combination for the cited secondary references to remedy.
Further, we find unavailing Appellants general allegation of patentability of
those claims based on additional limitations recited therein.
Appeal 2010-007660
Application 10/062,666

6
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 3, 5, 6, 10-16, and 20-
37.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tj