Ex Parte Lin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 30, 201814092256 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2018) 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. 14/092,256 11/27/2013 Su-Horng LIN 050094-0165 2731 20277 7590 02/01/2018 MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP The McDermott Building 500 North Capitol Street, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20001 EXAMINER LUCK, SEAN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2881 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/01/2018 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): ipdocketmwe @ mwe. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SU-HORNG LIN and CHI-MING YANG Appeal 2017-003974 Application 14/092,256 Technology Center 2800 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1,3,4, 10-14, 16—18, and 21—29.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed November 27, 2013 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action mailed January 12, 2016 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed July 18, 2016 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed November 10, 2016 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed January 10, 2017 (“Reply Br.”). 2 Appellant is the Applicant, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd., which, according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. 3 Claims 2, 5—9, 15, 19, and 20 were canceled in an Amendment filed November 30, 2015. Appeal 2017-003974 Application 14/092,256 The subject matter on appeal relates to a metrology device and metrology method. Spec. 1, 4—5; Figs. 1, 2. Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claims on appeal. 1. A metrology device, comprising: a light source for providing an X-ray; at least one lens configured to focus the X-ray. to a wafer, the focused X-ray being diffracted on the wafer; and an image sensor sensitive to the diffracted X-ray and configured to detect an interference pattern of the X-ray diffracted on the wafer. Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal: Rejection I: Claims 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite; Rejection II: Claims 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) as being of improper dependent form; Rejection III: Claims 1, 11, 12, 14, 16, 21—23, 26, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Buijsse et al. (US 2005/0069082 Al, published March 31, 2005) (“Buijsse”); Rejection IV: Claims 3, 4, 10, 13, 17, 18, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Buijsse in view of Gendreau et al. (US 2011/0007869 Al, published January 13, 2011) (“Gendreau”); Rejection V: Claims 4 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Buijsse, Gendreau, and Shimura (US 6,272,198 Bl, issued August 7, 2001); and 2 Appeal 2017-003974 Application 14/092,256 Rejection VI: Claims 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Buijsse and Chidambarrao et al. (US 2009/0200604 Al, published August 13, 2009) (“Chidambarrao”). DISCUSSION Rejections I and II The Examiner rejects claims 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite because “[t]he claim[s] recite[] a method and an apparatus in the same claim.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner also rejects claims 24 and 25 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as improperly dependent for failing to further limit the claim upon which they depend. Id. at 4. The Examiner has failed to adequately explain the basis of these rejections. Independent claim 14 is directed to a metrology method for measuring the morphology of a wafer. Claims 24 and 25, which depend from claim 14, provide further description of the wafer that is being measured. Specifically, the method must be performed so as to detect an interference pattern of the X-ray diffracted on: (1) the wafer comprising a periodic structure (claim 24): and (2) the wafer comprising a fin field effect transistor (finFET) (claim 25). From our review, claims 24 and 25 on their face recite a method, not an apparatus, and are further limiting, and thus, properly dependent on, independent claim 14. For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Rejection III The Examiner finds that Buijsse teaches a luminescence scanning X-ray microscope that includes light source 2 for providing X-ray beam 4 3 Appeal 2017-003974 Application 14/092,256 and lens 8 configured to diffract X-ray 4 on sample (wafer) 10. Final Act. 5 (citing Buijsse 117). The Examiner also finds that Buijsse teaches that its device may include a CCD camera (image sensor) sensitive to the diffracted X-ray and configured to detect an interference pattern of the X-ray diffracted on sample 10. Final Act. 5 (citing Buijsse 122). One embodiment of Buijsse’s microscope is depicted in Figure 1 below (CCD array not shown). Buijsse’s Figure 1, reproduced above, shows a simple embodiment of its multi-probe luminescence scanning X-ray microscope. Appellant argues that Buijsse fails to disclose the X-ray sensitive CCD is configured to detect the interference pattern of the X-ray beam diffracted on the sample. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. As the Examiner finds, and Appellant does not dispute, Buijsse discloses that X-ray lens 8 is a Fresnel zone plate that diffracts X-rays, which necessarily creates a diffraction pattern. Compare Ans. 3 (citing Buijsse 118), with Reply Br. 3^4. In addition, the Examiner finds that Buijsse teaches “an image is formed on an X-ray sensitive CCD camera by means of an X-ray lens 24.” Ans. 3 (citing Buijsse 122). The Examiner finds that because “it is well known in the art that CCDs are position sensitive detectors, a CCD camera would . . . detect any diffraction pattern on the sample.” Ans. 3. As the Examiner persuasively explains, based on Buijsse’s teachings, one of 4 Appeal 2017-003974 Application 14/092,256 ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that “X-rays are diffracted by Fresnel zone plate 8[,] [creating] an interference pattern on . . . sample [10] from the diffracted X-rays, which is then detected by a CCD camera that is X-ray sensitive and more than capable of resolving an interference pattern by virtue of it being [a] position sensitive [detector].” Ans. 4; see also Buijsse 117 (disclosing that in Fig. 1, light is projected by way of glass lens 14, as a light beam 16 onto a position-sensitive detector (not shown), for example, a CCD array which is sensitive to visible light) and Fig. 1. A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s findings and reasoned explanation. Appellant argues that “[e]ven if the X-ray beam 4 is diffracted on the sample 10 . . . the X-ray beam 4 will be further diffracted on the Fresnel zone plate 24. Therefore, the CCD camera will detect an interference pattern of the X-ray diffracted on the Fresnel zone plate 24 rather than the sample 10.” Reply Br. 4. This argument is without persuasive merit. Buijsse does not teach that X-ray lens 24 is a Fresnel zone plate that diffracts light. Rather, Buijsse teaches that X-ray lens 24 is a “microzone plate acting as the objective lens,” for forming an image. Buijsse 122. In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 11, 12, 14, 16, 21-23, 26, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). Rejections IV—VI With respect to Rejections IV, V, and VI, Appellant does not make any additional substantive arguments, but rather relies on the arguments discussed above in Rejection III. Appeal Br. 11—13. As discussed above, we are not persuaded of reversible error in Rejection III. As such, we also sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 3, 4, 10, 13, 17, 18, 5 Appeal 2017-003974 Application 14/092,256 27, and 28 as unpatentable over Buijsse and Gendreau, claims 4 and 17 as unpatentable over Buijsse, Gendreau, and Shimura, and claims 24 and 25 as unpatentable over Buijsse and Chidambarrao. DECISION For the above reasons, the rejections of claims 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 are reversed, and the rejection of claims 1, 11, 12, 14, 16, 21—23, 26, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), and the rejections of claims 3, 4, 10, 13, 17, 18, 24, 25, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are 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). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation