Ex Parte Huibers

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 17, 2010

10875602 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 17, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ANDREW HUIBERS
____________

Appeal 2009-002377
Application 10/875,602
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: June 17, 2010
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-16 and 23-32, 35 and 36.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Claims 33 and 34 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base
claim, but allowable if rewritten in independent form (Final Office Action
mailed June 8, 2007, pg. 8). Claims 17-22 have been withdrawn (Br. 2).
Appeal 2009-002377
Application 10/875,602

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention is a system and method for evaluating,
using optical techniques, the quality of micro-electromechanical devices
having deflectable mirror plates. Quality is characterized in terms of
position uniformity of the mirror plates and is evaluated by light reflectance
of the mirror plates and analysis of the resulting illumination pattern. (Spec.
¶ [0023]) The apparatus includes a light source providing collimated light
for illuminating the mirror plates and an image capture device for capturing
reflected light from the mirror plates and generating illumination patterns
(Spec. ¶ [0024]).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A system for evaluating a quality of a plurality of
microelectromechanical devices formed into a plurality of dies on a
wafer, each microelectromechanical device having a deflectable
reflective plate, and each die having an array of plates, the system
comprising:

a light source providing a light beam;

an optics for collimating the light beam;

a wafer holder for holding the wafer such that the plates on the wafer
reflect the light beam;

an image capture device that captures the reflected light from the
microelectromechanical devices on the wafer and generates a set of
images of the wafer, each wafer image corresponding to a beam of
reflect light in a particular spatial direction; and different wafer
images correspond to reflected light in different directions; and

means for quantitatively evaluating a quality of the
microelectromechanical devices on the wafer, further comprising:
Appeal 2009-002377
Application 10/875,602

3
means for quantitatively characterizing a difference between the
brightness of the captured images; and

means for evaluating the quality of the microelectromechanical
devices based on the quantitatively characterized difference.

REFERENCES
Reuter US 2003/0218753 A1 Nov. 27, 2003
Reznichenko US 2003/0202177 A1 Oct. 30, 2003

The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-16, 23-32, 35, and 36 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Reuter.
The Examiner rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Reuter and Reznichenko.
The Examiner rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Reuter, Reznichenko, and Official Notice.2
Appellant contends Reuter does not teach or suggest generating a set
of images of a wafer, each wafer image corresponding to a beam of reflect
light in a particular spatial direction, and different wafer images
corresponding to reflected light in different directions (Br. 10). Appellant
also contends Reuter does not teach or suggest evaluating the uniformity of
illuminated dies based on a brightness distribution of a captured image of
dies (Br. 14). Appellant further contends Reuter does not teach or suggest
accepting a set of controlling parameters from a user (Br. 15).

2 Appellant only argues the rejections with respect to Reuter (Br. 7). No
arguments are provided with respect to Reznichenko or Official Notice.
Appeal 2009-002377
Application 10/875,602

4
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Reuter teaches the features recited in
Appellant’s claimed invention?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Reuter teaches a beam of monochromatic light 410 generated
by a light source 405 passes through a set of focusing optics 415 so that a
uniform set of light beams 420 is directed to a digital micromirror device
(DMD) under test 425. As light beams are applied to the DMD under test,
micromirrors in the DMD generate a set of reflected light beams 430. An
integrating optical sensor 435 collects these reflected light beams. (¶ [0029];
Fig. 4)
2. Reuter teaches leaving a shutter of the optical sensor open for
several periods of a driving signal (¶ [0041]). After several cycles of the
driving signal, the optical sensor makes an accurate measurement of the
amount of light reflected by the micromirror during a first time period (¶
[0043]; Fig. 7A). This process is repeated over a series of time periods until
the entire driving signal has been characterized (¶ [0044]; Figs. 7A-7C).
3. Reuter shows patterns utilized in this system for measuring
specific characteristics of the DMD under test may include herring-bone
patterns, checkerboard patterns, or other predetermined patterns. By
utilizing different patterns and adjusting the length of the light signals
provided by the light source, the transient characteristics of the DMD under
test can be accurately measured (¶ [0031]).
Appeal 2009-002377
Application 10/875,602

5
4. Reuter’s system includes a computer for providing driving
signals (i.e., driving patterns) to a pattern generator in addition to collecting
the output of the optical sensor (¶ [0030]).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error in the
Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir.
2006).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-16, 23-32, 35, and 36 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Reuter (Ans. 3). The Examiner separately rejected
claims 4 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appellant argues the rejections
with respect to independent claims 1, 23, 29, 30, 35, and 36.
Claim 1
The Examiner finds Reuter teaches all the features of Appellant’s
claimed invention except for testing micro-electromechanical devices on a
wafer. However, the Examiner finds, because Reuter does not limit the use
of the testing device to the device level, it would have been obvious to one
skilled in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention to “qualitatively
evaluate/test the quality of a microelectromechanical devices on the wafer.”
(Ans. 5-6) The Examiner further finds Reuter teaches generating a set of
wafer images in a spatial direction (FF 3; Ans. 4).
Appeal 2009-002377
Application 10/875,602

6
Appellant contends Reuter merely measures the transient behavior of
individual micromirrors with a high level of accuracy (Br. 12) and does not
qualitatively evaluate deflection distribution information of micromirrors
(Br. 10-11).
As found by the Examiner, Appellant acknowledges Reuter teaches
“capturing a series of images corresponding to a beam of light along a
particular spatial direction…” (emphasis omitted) (Ans. 14). Reuter also
teaches making a series of images different from one another because the
mirrors in those images are at different positions at different times during the
driving signal (FF 1, 2). Because the mirrors in those images are at different
positions, light will be reflected off the mirrors in different directions. Thus,
different wafer images corresponding to reflected light in different directions
will be generated. (FF 2) Additionally, as found by the Examiner, claim 1
only requires a particular spatial direction, not a different spatial direction as
asserted by Appellant (FF 1; Ans. 14).
Because Reuter measures specific characteristics of a DMD, Reuter
qualitatively evaluates illuminated dies (Ans. 17-18). Further, Appellant’s
argument that Reuter fails to teach or suggest obtaining qualitative
information based on the deflection distribution of micromirrors as described
by Appellant’s Abstract is unfounded, as the features described in the
Abstract are not recited in the claims (Ans. 15). Thus, Appellant incorrectly
asserts Reuter obtains images for measuring transient behavior and does not
evaluate a qualitative difference.

Appeal 2009-002377
Application 10/875,602

7
Claims 23, 29, 30, 35, and 36
With respect to claims 23, 29, 30, 35, and 36, Appellant further
contends Reuter does not teach or suggest accepting a set of controlling
parameters from a user through a user-interface, and based on the
parameters, capturing a set of images of dies on a wafer, and qualitatively
evaluating the die based on a brightness distribution of the captured images
(see Br. 14, 15, 17-18, 19, and 20).
The Examiner finds Reuter’s computer system accepts a set of
controlling parameters (driving signals) and the optical sensor provides the
driving signals through integration and computer executable instructions to a
pattern generator for displaying a pattern on the micromirror array (FF 4;
Ans. 15-17). Thus, the claimed user-interface limitation is part of Reuter’s
computer because the computer has to be programmed to perform the
integration function and to select different patterns (Ans. 15-16 and 18-19).
Reuter teaches accurately measuring transient characteristics of the
DMD under test by measuring and comparing bright and dark spots of
various patterns. The bright and dark spots of the various patterns applied to
the DMD under test, such as herring-bone patterns, checkerboard patterns, or
other predetermined patterns, correspond to a brightness distribution. (FF 3;
Ans. 18, 21, 23, 25, and 27) Therefore, Reuter teaches qualitatively
evaluating the uniformity of illuminated dies based on a brightness
distribution of a captured image of the dies (Ans. 16, 17).
For these reasons and those set forth above with respect to claim 1,
Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 23, 29, 30,
35, and 36 over Reuter.
Appeal 2009-002377
Application 10/875,602

8
Because dependent claims 2-16, 24-28, 31, and 32 were not argued
separately, these claims fall with their respective independent claim.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding Reuter teaches the features recited
in Appellant’s claimed invention.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-16, 23-32, 35, and 36 is
affirmed.
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

KIS

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P. O. BOX 655474, M/S 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265