Ex Parte Moreira et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 30, 2018

11998616 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111998,616 11129/2007
109838 7590 05/31/2018
Advantest c/o Murabito Hao & Barnes LLP
Two North Market Street
Third Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jose MOREIRA
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.
ATSS-0206-01.0lUS 6426
EXAMINER
SCHECHTER, ANDREW M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2857
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
05/3112018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE
THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSE MOREIRA, 1
Ajay Khoche, Erik Volkerink
Appeal2016-004802
Application 11/998,616
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, MARK NAGUMO, and
MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Jose Moreira, Ajay Khoche, Erik Volkerink ("Moreira") timely appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection2 of all pending claims 1-
4, 6, 8-15, and 17-22. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6. We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Advantest Corporation. (Appeal
Brief, filed 12 March 2013 ("Br."), 2.)
2 Office Action mailed 12 March 2012 ("Final Rejection"; cited as "FR").
Appeal 2016-004802
Application 11/998,616
A. Introduction 3
OPINION
The subject matter on appeal relates to a method (claim 1 ), a "system"
(claim 12), and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium
including operable instructions (claim 22), for testing a semiconductor
device. The '616 Specification explains that, e.g., during production of a
device, changes in the production process may result in changes in device
performance, in complicated ways. (Spec. 2 [0004].) The inventors seek
patent protection for a method, etc., of testing the devices that, inter alia,
upon determining that at least one of a measured first value or a determined
second value (that is at least partially affected by the first value) is outside
acceptable bounds, provides a solution that, inter alia, optimizes the first and
second values within their acceptable limits.
Claim 12 is representative of the dispositive issues and reads:
A system, comprising:
a memory storing
a first testing model of a semiconductor device under test, the
first testing model including a first plurality of parameters
and acceptable limits for the first plurality of parameters and
a second testing model of the semiconductor device under
test, the second testing model including a second plurality of
parameters and acceptable limits for the second plurality of
parameters; and
a processor receiving a first value for a first parameter
from the first plurality of parameters,
3 Application 11/998,616, System and method for electronic testing of
devices, filed 29 November 2007. We refer to the "'616 Specification,"
which we cite as "Spec."
2
Appeal 2016-004802
Application 11/998,616
the first parameter at least partially affecting a second
parameter from the second plurality of parameters,
the processor determining a second value for the second
parameter based on the first value,
the processor
determining if the first value is within the acceptable
limits for the first plurality of parameters and
determining if the second value is within the acceptable
limits for the second plurality of parameters,
the processor proffering at least one solution when at
least one of the first and second values is outside the
acceptable limits for the corresponding one of the first
and second pluralities of parameters,
the solution altering the first testing model, the second
testing model, or a component of the semiconductor
device under test, and
the solution optimizing compliance of both
i) the first value with the acceptable limits for the
first plurality of parameters, and
ii) the second value with the acceptable limits for
the second plurality of parameters,
the processor outputting the solution.
(Claims App., Br. 17-18; some indentation, paragraphing, and emphasis
added.)
Remaining independent claims 1 and 22 are similar, and each recites
the italicized limitation.
3
Appeal 2016-004802
Application 11/998,616
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection4' 5 :
A. Claims 1--4, 6, 8, 10-15, 17, 18, and 20-22 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings
of Harvey6 and Chamness. 7
Al. Claims 9 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Harvey, Chamness, and
Rangachari. 8
B. Discussion
The Board's findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by
a preponderance of the evidence of record.
Moreira does not dispute substantively the Examiner's findings that
Harvey discloses a system meeting the various limitations prior to the
requirement that the system provide a solution optimizing both the first and
second values. (Br. 6-7.) Specifically, Moreira urges that, although
"Harvey, Jr. et al. discloses that when prompted by an 'adaption trigger' one
or more multivariate statistical models are adapted ... Harvey, Jr. et al. does
4 Examiner's Answer mailed 25 October 2013 ("Ans.").
5 Because this application was filed before the 16 March 2013, effective
date of the America Invents Act, we refer to the pre-AIA version of the
statute.
6 Jerry Lynn Harvey, Jr., and Alexander T. Schwarm, Adaptive multivariate
fault detection, U.S. Patent No. 2008/0015814 Al (17 January 2008), based
on an application filed 4 May 2007.
7 Kevin Andrew Chamness et al., Method and apparatus for multivariate
fault detection and classification, U.S. Patent No. 7,248,939 Bl (24 July
2007), based on an application filed 13 January 2005.
8 Murali D. Rangachari et al., Method and apparatus for automating a
microelectronic manufacturing process, U.S. Patent Application Publication
2003/0176940 Al (2003).
4
Appeal 2016-004802
Application 11/998,616
not teach that an adaptation (which is suggested teaches the recited solution)
must optimize values that are a part of first and second multivariate
statistical models." (Id. at 7, 11. 16-20.) Rather, in Moreira's view,
"Harvey, Jr. et al. strongly suggests that each multivariate statistical model is
adapted independently and teaches away from optimizing values associated
with more than one multivariate statistical model." (Id. at 11. 20-22.) In
support of this argument, Moreira quotes Harvey as disclosing that "'one or
more of the multivariate statistical models are adapted' as part of the
adaption process." (Id. at 7, 1. 23-8, 1. 1, citing Harvey 5 [0051].) Moreira
concludes that "[b ]ecause one multivariate statistical model can be adapted
at a time, Harvey, Jr. et al. strongly suggests that the optimization of values
associated with more than one model, as required by Appellants' claims, is
not done in the adaptation process that is disclosed by Harvey, Jr. et al."
(Br. 8, 11. 1-3.)
The difficulty with this argument is that Moreira does not address
with any specificity the "or more" prong of the express statement by Harvey
that "one or more of the multivariate statistical models are adapted."
Moreover, as the Examiner emphasizes, Harvey also teaches that "in one
embodiment, all statistics for each of the process variables are adapted."
(Ans. 6, 11. 10-11, quoting Harvey [0052], first sentence.) Even if Moreira is
correct that Harvey prefers to "adapt" only one multivariate statistical
model, such a preference does not negative the teachings that more than one
of the multivariate statistical models may be adapted. Particularly given the
absence of dispute, on the present record, regarding the Examiner's findings
that Harvey satisfies all of the previously recited limitations regarding the
5
Appeal 2016-004802
Application 11/998,616
memory and the processor, we are not persuaded of harmful error in the
appealed rejections.
Moreira does not raise substantively distinct arguments for
patentability based on any of the limitations recited in the dependent claims
or based on further findings regarding the secondary references. Nor does
Moreira raise arguments based on so-called "secondary" considerations.
We therefore affirm the appealed rejections.
C. Order
It is ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 8-15, and 17-22 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).
AFFIRMED
6