Ex Parte LI et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 21, 2004

10102574 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 21, 2004)

-1-
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is
not binding precedent of the Board
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
______________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
______________________
Ex parte LAIN-JONG LI, SYUN-MING JANG
and CHUNG-CHI KO
______________________
Appeal No. 2005-0199
Application No. 10/102,574
______________________
ON BRIEF
______________________
Before HAIRSTON, MACDONALD, and NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 4 through 8 and 11 through 14.
The disclosed invention relates to a method of determining whether the metal surface of a
semiconductor die is contaminated.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as follows:
Appeal No. 2005-0199
Application No. 10/102,574
-2-
1. A method comprising:
impinging a metal surface of a semiconductor die with an infrared (IR) beam
employing an attenuated total reflectance (ATR) technique;
measuring the IR beam as reflected by the metal surface by measuring an
interferogram of the metal surface, and performing a Fourier transform on the
interferogram; and
determining whether the metal surface is contaminated based on the IR beam
as reflected by the metal surface.
The reference relied on by the examiner are:
Watanabe et al. (Watanabe) 6,433,877 Aug. 13, 2002
(effective filing date Apr. 2, 1999)
Takoudis et al. (Takoudis) 2002/0180991 Dec. 5, 2002
(filed Apr. 30, 2001)
Watanabe et al. (Watanabe) 2 348 490 Oct. 4, 2000
(UK Patent Application)
Claims 1, 4 through 8 and 11 through 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Watanabe ‘877 in view of Takoudis and Watanabe ‘490.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the respective positions of the
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
For all of the reasons expressed by the appellants, and for the additional reasons set forth
infra, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 4 through 8 and 11 through 14.
Appeal No. 2005-0199
Application No. 10/102,574
-3-
The examiner has acknowledged (answer, pages 4 and 5) that Watanabe ‘877 fails to
disclose all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and that Takoudis fails to disclose
“determining whether the metal surface is contaminated based on the IR beam as reflected by the
metal surface comprises comparing the IR beam as reflected by the metal surface to a reference
sample, and concluding that the metal surface is contaminated when the IR beam as reflected
thereby deviates from the reference sample by more than a threshold.”
Based upon the examiner’s admission, and our independent review of the teachings of
these references, we must agree with the examiner’s assessment of the lack of teachings in these
references. Although Watanabe ‘490 discloses Fourier Transform Infrared spectroscope surface
inspection using absorption of infrared rays, he describes it as a method rendered impractical
because of the difficulty, complexity, time and expense needed to perform the analysis (page 3,
lines 1 through 6). In any event, Watanabe fails to teach the steps set forth in the claims on
appeal.
In summary, the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 4 through 8 and 11 through 14 is
reversed for failure of the examiner to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness.
Appeal No. 2005-0199
Application No. 10/102,574
-4-
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 4 through 8 and 11 through 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
)
ALLEN R. MACDONALD ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge )
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ROBERT E. NAPPI )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH/dpv
Appeal No. 2005-0199
Application No. 10/102,574
-5-
Tung & Associates
Suite 120
838 W. Long Lake Road
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302