Ex Parte LEV et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2016

12828368 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/828,368
69054 7590
RECHES PA TENTS
211 North Union St.
Suite 100
FILING DATE
07/01/2010
09/23/2016
Alexandria, VA 22314
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael LEV
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
3017/106-US 6716
EXAMINER
ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2016 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):
OREN@I-P.CO.IL
RECHES0@012.NET.IL
MAIL@I-P.CO.IL
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL LEV and AMIR GILEAD
Appeal2015-005715
Application 12/828,368
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.2
1 Appellants identify Camtek Ltd. as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 3.)
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed July 1, 2010 ("Spec."), the
Final Office Action mailed Apr. 10, 2014 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief
filed July 6, 2014 ("App. Br."), the corrected Claims Appendix filed Aug.
14, 2014 ("Claims App'x"), the Examiner's Answer mailed Mar. 11, 2015
("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed May 11, 2015 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2015-005715
Application 12/828,368
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an optical inspection system having an
optical element that directs light from different areas of the edge of an
inspected object toward an image sensor, so that the image sensor
concurrently obtains images of the different areas. (Spec. Abstract.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An optical inspection system, comprising:
a first image sensor;
a second image sensor;
a support module for supporting and rotating an inspected
object that has an edge that comprises a top area, top bevel area,
an apex area, a bottom bevel area and a bottom area;
a first optical element, for directing light from the top area,
from the top bevel area and from the apex area towards the first
image sensor; and
a second optical element; for directing light from the
bottom area, from the bottom bevel area and from the apex area
towards the second image sensor;
wherein the first image sensor is arranged to sense the light
from the top area, from the top bevel area and from the apex area;
and
wherein the second image sensor is arranged to sense the
light from the bottom area, from the bottom bevel area and from
the apex area.
(Claims App'x 2.)
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-14 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on
Wagner (US 2006/0072105 Al, published Apr. 6, 2006). (Final Act. 4--11.)
2
Appeal2015-005715
Application 12/828,368
Claims 15-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Jung
et al. (US 2006/0083437 Al, published Apr. 20, 2006) and Wagner. (Final
Act. 12-16.)
Claims 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Wagner and Sandland et al. (US 4,556,317, issued Dec. 3, 1985). (Final
Act. 17.)
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Rejections over Wagner
Independent Claims 1 and 9
Appellants contend Wagner does not disclose a "first image sensor is
arranged to sense the light from the top area, from the top bevel area and
from the apex area" and a "second image sensor is arranged to sense the
light from the bottom area, from the bottom bevel area and from the apex
area." (App. Br. 15-18; Reply Br. 4--5.) Appellants argue Wagner's pairs
of cameras are limited to separately imaging the upper edge zone of the
wafer (cameras 10 and 11 ), the lower edge zone of the wafer (cameras 12
and 13), and the lateral edge of the wafer (cameras 14 and 15), with no
overlap of zones as suggested by the Examiner. (App. Br. 16-17.)
Appellants contend the Examiner's interpretation that the claimed image
sensor can be any number of combinations of cameras, including a set of
cameras, is contrary to the explicit language of the claims, which require an
optical element to direct light from each area (e.g., top, top bevel, and apex
area) to the sensor. (App. Br. 18.)
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error in the rejection, and agree with
the Examiner's finding that the first image sensor and second image sensor
3
Appeal2015-005715
Application 12/828,368
are claimed in terms of functional language (i.e., "arranged to sense the
light") and do not require any specific structure. (Final Act. 5-7; Ans. 8-
10.) Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
Appellants' disclosure, we agree with the Examiner's finding that an "image
sensor" as claimed does not preclude using a combination of cameras to
sense the light of the various areas. As the Examiner finds, Wagner's top
(10) and side (14) cameras disclose a first image arranged to sense the light
from the top area, from the top bevel area and from the apex area, and
Wagner's bottom (12) and side (15) cameras disclose a second image sensor
arranged to sense the light from the bottom area, from the bottom bevel area
and from the apex area. (Id. (citing Wagner i-fi-145, 47--49); see In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004): "[T]he PTO
is obligated to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation during
examination.") We further agree with the Examiner's finding that Wagner's
light guides ( 5) disclose first and second optical elements that direct light
into each of the image sensor cameras. (Id. (citing Wagner i1 49).)
Dependent Claims 2 and 10
Appellants contend Wagner does not disclose the first optical element
comprises "a first segment that faces the top area, a second segment that
faces the top bevel area and a third segment that faces the apex area,"
because a "segment" is one of the parts into which something can be
divided, and Wagner's separate cameras cannot be regarded as segments of
an optical element. (App. Br. 19; Reply Br. 6.) Appellants' contention does
not persuade us of error in the rejection, as we find Appellants' definition of
"segment," dividing the optical element into separate parts, supports the use
4
Appeal2015-005715
Application 12/828,368
of a combination of light guides and cameras to image the top, top bevel,
and apex areas. Thus, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Wagner's
light guides disclose a first optical element with segments that face the top
and top bevel areas (Final Act. 7; Ans. 10-11 (citing Wagner i-fi-148--49:
segments of light guide 5 for camera 10 face both the top and upper edge
zone of the wafer)) and a segment that faces the apex area (id. (light guide 5
for camera 14 faces the lateral edge, or apex, of the wafer)).
Dependent Claims 7 and 13
Appellants contend Wagner does not disclose "a processor that is
arranged to analyze images ... for suspected inspected object defects" and
"a review unit comprises a review camera for obtaining images of the
suspected defects ... wherein the first scan unit, the second scan unit and the
review unit are spaced apart from each other." (App. Br. 20-21; Reply Br.
6.) Appellants argue Wagner discusses an inspection station with pairs of
cameras and a PC for image processing, but does not disclose the claimed
processor that is arranged to analyze images and review unit for obtaining
images of suspected defects. (Id.)
We do not find Appellants' contention persuasive of Examiner error.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellants'
disclosure, the review camera need not be separate from the cameras of the
first and second image sensor, rather, only a portion of the review unit must
be "spaced apart" from the first and second sensors, or scan units. (See In re
Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., supra.) Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner's finding that Wagner's inspection system comprises a review unit
camera (i.e., any one of cameras 10-15) that obtains images of suspected
5
Appeal2015-005715
Application 12/828,368
defects (Ans. 11-12 (citing Wagner if 21)), wherein the review unit is spaced
apart from the first and second image sensors and comprises a processor to
analyze images of suspected defects (id. (citing Wagner if 45: evaluation unit
8 comprises PC 9, which contains a processor that analyzes image data)).
Dependent Claims 8 and 14
Appellants contend Wagner does not disclose "the review unit
comprises a rotating module that rotates the review camera about an axis
such as to change an angle between the review camera and the edge of the
inspected object," rather, Wagner merely discloses a wafer than can be
translated vertically or horizontally. (App. Br. 22; Reply Br. 7.) We are
unpersuaded of Examiner error by Appellants' contention, and agree with
the Examiner's finding that Wagner discloses the cameras, which include a
review camera as discussed supra, can be pivotally arranged to change the
angle between the cameras and the wafer. (Ans. 13 (citing Wagner if 29)).
Dependent Claim 26
Appellants contend Wagner does not disclose "the first and second
optical elements form a multi facet deflector that is made of transparent
material and comprises two facets, one positioned above the inspected object
and the other positioned below the inspected object ... wherein the two
facets are coated with reflective material or are connected to a mirror."
(App. Br. 30; Reply Br. 9.) Appellants argue Wagner fails to indicate how
the cited optical imaging system is formed, thus the imaging system cannot
be regarded as the claimed multi facet deflector.
6
Appeal2015-005715
Application 12/828,368
As discussed supra regarding claim 1, we agree with the Examiner's
finding that the Wagner discloses a first optical element (transparent light
guides 5 with cameras 10 and 14) and second optical element (transparent
light guides 5 with cameras 12 and 15), which are positioned above and
below the wafer, respectively. (Final Act. 5-7; Ans. 8-10.) Further, we
agree with the Examiner's finding that at least a portion of the light guides
are coated with reflective material. (Ans. 17-19 (citing Wagner i-f 48)).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejections over Jung and Wagner
Independent Claims 15 and 18
Appellants contend the combination of Jung and Wagner does not
teach "a multi facet deflector that surrounds an edge of an inspected object
and is arranged to allow light to pass through a transparent material of the
multi facet deflector and to impinge on the edge of the inspected object."
(App. Br. 24--26; Reply Br. 7-8.) Appellants argue Jung's multi-facet
mirror array only reflects light, and does not include a transparent material
that allows light to pass through it. (Id.) Appellants contend Wagner does
not cure the deficiencies of Jung, and Wagner teaches away from using a
multi facet deflector as claimed.
Appellants' contentions do not persuade us of Examiner error. The
Examiner properly relies on In re Keller, 642 F.2d413, 425 (CCPA 1981)
and In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (Ans. 14),
and states that nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the
references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination
of Jung and Wagner (id.). We agree with the Examiner's finding that a
7
Appeal2015-005715
Application 12/828,368
skilled artisan would recognize using Jung's curved, multi facet mirror (60)
as the reflective mirror in Wagner's transparent light guide optics would
result in the claimed multi facet deflector, which surrounds the edge of a
wafer and allows light to pass through the light guide and impinge on the
wafer. (Final Act. 13-14; Ans. 14--15 (citing Jung i-f 37 and Wagner i-f 48).)
Further, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Wagner does not
teach away from the combination with Jung. (Ans. 15). "A reference may
be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the
reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the
reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was
taken by the applicant." (In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).) Here, Wagner teaches the
use of mirrors in the imaging optics, rather than discouraging the use of such
mirrors. (Final Act. 13-14; Ans. 15 (citing Wagner i-f 48).)
Dependent Claims 22 and 23
Appellants contend the combination of Jung and Wagner does not
teach "the multi facet deflector comprises a facet that is located above the
inspected object and is parallel to the inspected object and comprises a facet
that is located below the inspected object and is parallel to the inspected
object." (App. Br. 27; Reply Br. 8.) As discussed supra with respect to
claims 1 and 15, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Wagner's
camera system teaches an image sensor above and parallel to the wafer (i.e.,
cameras 10 and 14) and an image sensor below and parallel to the wafer
(i.e., cameras 12 and 15), and the combination of Jung and Wagner teaches a
multi facet deflector that surrounds an edge of the wafer. (Final Act. 5-7,
8
Appeal2015-005715
Application 12/828,368
13-14; Ans. 8-10, 14-15.) Thus, we agree with the Examiner's finding that
the combination of Jung and Wagner results in a multi facet deflector that
has a facet located above and parallel to the wafer (i.e., facets of the
combined optics of Wagner's light guide 5 for cameras 10 and 14 with
Jung's mirror 60) and a facet located below and parallel to the wafer (i.e.,
facets of the combined optics of Wagner's light guide 5 for cameras 12 and
15 with Jung's mirror 60). (Ans. 16.)
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejections over Wagner and Sandland
Dependent Claims 24 and 25
Appellants contend the combination of Wagner and Sandland does not
teach "each one of the first and second optical elements is a penta-prism,"
because Sandland teaches a single penta-prism that directs light only from
the top of the wafer to a single a camera, and Wagner teaches away from
using a penta-prism as a first and second optical element to direct light as
claimed. (App. Br. 28-29; Reply Br. 8.) Appellants' contentions are
unpersuasive of Examiner error, as Appellants are arguing the Wagner and
Sandland references individually. (Ans. 16-17; see Keller and Merck,
supra.) We agree with the Examiner's finding that a skilled artisan would
recognize the ability to use the penta-prism of Sandland as part of the
refractive light guides of Wagner. (Final Act. 17; Ans. 16-17 (citing
Wagner i-f 48 and Sandland col. 17: 14--17); see KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007): "The combination of familiar elements according
to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.")
9
Appeal2015-005715
Application 12/828,368
Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are presented for the remaining dependent
claims. Thus, for reasons stated with respect to independent claims 1, 9, 15,
and 18, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of the remaining dependent
claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re King, 801F.2d1324, 1325 (Fed.
Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-26.
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).
AFFIRMED
10