Ex Parte Lin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 23, 201612976646 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/976,646 12/22/2010 42717 7590 05/25/2016 HA YNES AND BOONE, LLP IP Section 2323 Victory A venue Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75219 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR CHIN-HSIANG LIN 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. 2009-0235-CIP/24061. l 424 7836 EXAMINER WEI, ZHONGQING ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1726 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/25/2016 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): ipdocketing@haynesboone.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHIN-HSIANG LIN, HENG-JEN LEE, I-HSIUNG HUANG, CHIH-CHIANG TU, CHUN-JEN CHEN and RICK LAI Appeal2014-009748 Application 12/976,646 Technology Center 1700 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-12, and 14--16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM. Appellants' invention is best illustrated by independent claim 1, reproduced below (emphasis added): Appeal2014-009748 Application 12/976,646 1. A method comprising: providing a mask fabricated according to a design pattern; extracting a mask pattern from the mask, wherein the extracting includes converting a mask image of the fabricated mask into the mask pattern, and wherein the mask pattern is represented in an IC design format; converting the mask pattern in the IC design format into a rendered mask pattern, wherein the converting includes applying a model to map edge contours of the mask pattern into polygons, and wherein the rendered mask pattern includes the design pattern and any defects in the mask; simulating a lithography process using the rendered mask pattern to create a virtual wafer pattern; determining whether any defects in the mask are critical based on the virtual wafer pattern; and repairing any defects in the mask that are determined to be critical. The Examiner maintains the following rejections: (a) Claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Qian (US 2004/0052411 Al, published March 18, 2004), Ikeda (US 2003/0074156 Al, published April 17, 2003) and Fukuda (US 2006/0243906 Al, published November 2, 2006); (b) claims 7 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Qian, Ikeda, Fukuda and Weed (US 2003/0119216 Al, published June 26, 2003); and 2 Appeal2014-009748 Application 12/976,646 (c) claims 9--12 and 14--16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Qian, Ikeda, Fukuda, Weed and Inoue (US 2011/0058729 Al, published March 10, 2011). Appellants present arguments for independent claim 1 and do not separately argue claims 2, 5 and 6 in Rejection (a). See Appeal Brief, generally. Appellants additionally rely on the arguments presented when discussing claim 1 to address the separate rejection of claims 7 and 8 (Rejection (b)). Id. at 14. For Rejection (c), Appellants present separate arguments for independent claim 9. Accordingly, we select independent claims 1 and 9 as representative of the subject matter before us on appeal. Claims 2, 5-8 stand or fall with independent claim 1 and claims 10-12 and 14--16 stand or fall with independent claim 9. OPINION Prior Art Rejections (Rejections (a) and (b))1 We have reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for patentability. However, we are in agreement with the Examiner that the claimed subject matter of representative claim 1 is unpatentable. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's prior art rejection for essentially the reasons explained in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellants' invention is directed to a method for detecting blank mask defects and utilizing defect information from a comparison between a virtual 1 A discussion of Fukuda is unnecessary for disposition of this rejection. The Examiner relied upon this prior art to meet the claimed method steps, which Appellants do not contest. Ans. 2--4; see Appeal Brief, generally. 3 Appeal2014-009748 Application 12/976,646 wafer pattern and the original design pattern to determine whether critical defects in a mask are present prior to making an actual integrated circuit wafer. Spec. Figure 10, i-fi-f 17, 47-52. Independent claim 1 requires that the virtual mask (rendered mask pattern) used to make the virtual wafer pattern to be based on a representation of the actual mask in the IC design format. There is no dispute that Qian's process to detect mask defects compares representations of a virtual mask wafer pattern and of a mask design pattern used to make the mask in the same format, images in this case, to detect defects present in the produced mask. App. Br. 9; Ans. 19; Qian Figures 2A, 2B, 3. Appellants principally argue none of the cited art teach conversion of a mask image of a fabricated mask into a mask pattern represented in an IC design format and performing an IC design-format based comparison between the mask design pattern and the virtual mask wafer resulting from the converted mask pattern. App. Br. 8-9, 12. According to Appellants; the rejection fails to put forth any evidence that converting a mask image of a fabricated mask into a mask pattern represented in an IC design format was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art. App. Br. 11. We are unpersuaded by these arguments. The Examiner found Qian teaches a method for mask defect analysis by comparing the mask reference pattern and the virtual pattern in an image format. Final Act. 5; Ans. 19; Qian Figures 2A, 2B, 5, i-fi-14, 17-19, 38, 39, 41, 42, 54, 64, 66, 68-70. The Examiner further found Qian teaches design patterns in GDS format, disclosed by Appellants as an IC design format (Spec. i150), are known. Final Act. 5; Ans. 19; Qian i142. While the Examiner acknowledges that Qian does not disclose the recited design format comparison, the Examiner 4 Appeal2014-009748 Application 12/976,646 determined one skilled in the art would have been capable of using any known pattern representation format, such as the GDS-based IC design format of Qian, for representation of both the fabricated mask pattern and a reference pattern to facilitate a comparison to detect the presence of defects on a mask pattern. Ans. 19. Thus, the Examiner provided a reasonable basis for one skilled in the art to use an IC design format to identify defects in a fabricated mask pattern. Id. Appellants have not adequately explained why one skilled in the art, using no more than ordinary creativity, would not have been capable of modifying Qian's process of detecting mask pattern defects by using the known IC design format for the representations of the mask design pattern and the virtual wafer pattern from Qian's noted disclosure to meet desired product specifications. KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."). Appellants have not adequately explained a patentable distinction between the claimed invention and the process of Qian. Therefore, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Rejections (a) and (b )) for the reasons presented by the Examiner and given above. Prior Art Rejection (Rejection (c)) We AFFIRM. Independent claim 9 differs principally from claim 1 in that it specifically requires the use of a scanning electron microscope (SEM) to acquire the image of a mask fabricated according to a design pattern. 5 Appeal2014-009748 Application 12/976,646 In addition to relying on a line of arguments similar to the ones addressed above, Appellants further argue that the cited art does not teach acquiring a scanning electron microscope (SEM) image of a mask fabricated as claimed. App. Br. 15. We are unpersuaded by this argument and agree with the Examiner's determination of obviousness. As noted by the Examiner, Ikeda and Fukuda both exemplify the known use of a SEM to inspect semiconductor patterns, with Fukuda further disclosing the scanning electron microscope (SEM) as capable of performing automatic review of even minute defects in an image of a circuit pattern on a (photo )mask at high resolution. Final Act 7-8; Ikeda i-fi-13, 10, 12; Fukuda i-fi-f l, 4. Given these disclosures, Appellants have not adequately explained why one skilled in the art would not have been capable of adapting Qian's method to incorporate a SEM for the imaging of the mask pattern to initiate the detection of defects on a fabricated mask. In addition, Appellants' argument that they do not agree with the Examiner's finding of Inoue teaching inverse image rendering as recited in the claim is unavailing because Appellants do not adequately explain the basis of their disagreement. App. Br. 15. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 9-12 and 14--16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Rejection (c)) for the reasons presented by the Examiner and given above. ORDER The Examiner's prior art rejections of claims 1, 2, 5-12, and 14--16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Rejections (a)-(c)) are affirmed. TIME PERIOD 6 Appeal2014-009748 Application 12/976,646 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation