Ex Parte MOREIRA et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 30, 201811998616 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation