Ex Parte Pettibone

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2017

14313748 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2017)

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.
14/313,748 06/24/2014 Donald Pettibone KLA P4209 4460
78238 7590 04/03/2017
Suiter Swantz/KLA Joint Customer Number
Suiter Swantz pc llo
14301 FNB Parkway
Suite 220
Omaha, NE 68154-5299
EXAMINER
WERNER, BRIAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2017 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):
file@suiter.com
srs@suiter.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DONALD PETTIBONE
Appeal 2017-0014601
Application 14/313,748
Technology Center 2600
Before: MARC S. HOFF, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is KLA-Tencor
Corporation (App. Br. 3).
Appeal 2017-001460
Application 14/313,748
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1—
22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed acquiring a first inspection image
from the surface of the wafer, generating a reference image by applying a
thresholding function to the first image in order to isolate a speckle signal
component of the first image induced by wafer surface roughness, acquiring
one or more measurement inspection images from the surface of the wafer,
and generating a difference image by subtracting the generated one or more
reference images from the acquired one or more measurement inspection
images. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of improving wafer surface inspection sensitivity
comprising:
acquiring one or more first inspection images from the surface
of a wafer;
generating one or more reference images by applying a
thresholding function to the one or more first inspection images
in order to at least partially isolate a speckle signal component
of the one or more first inspection images, the speckle signal
component being at least partially induced by roughness of the
wafer surface;
acquiring one or more measurement inspection images from the
surface of the wafer; and
generating one or more difference images by subtracting the
generated one or more reference images from the acquired one
or more measurement inspection images,
2
Appeal 2017-001460
Application 14/313,748
the generated difference image having a reduced level of wafer
roughness induced speckle relative to the one or more first
inspection images.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that the limitation of “generating one
or more reference images by applying a thresholding function to the one or
more first inspection images in order to at least partially isolate a speckle
signal component of the one or more first inspection images,” as recited in
claim 1, is not enabled under 35 U.S.C §112, first paragraph?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner asserts that Appellant has not described a “thresholding
function” capable of isolating wafer roughness induced speckle in enough
detail for one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention
without undue experimentation (Ans. 3).
Appellant argues that one skilled in the art would know what the
“thresholding function” is and how to apply it to separate or isolate a speckle
from random noise and provides technical literature for support (App. Br.
22-23).
3
Appeal 2017-001460
Application 14/313,748
The Examiner’s evidence must he based on weighing all the Wands
factors based on the evidence as a whole. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737
(Fed, Cir, 1988). These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount: of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(IT) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the
invention based on the content of the disclosure.
See MPEP 2164,01 (a).
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner inappropriately evaluated
the Wands factors pertaining to the state of the prior art as evidenced by the
technical articles provided by Appellant and the amount of direction
provided by Appellant in the specification and prior art. We are persuaded
that the technical literature provided by Appellant (App. Br. 22) supports the
assertion that “thresholding function” algorithms are well known in the art
and can be used in image processing to implement an image threshold (see
for example the third article describing “Efficient Image Denoising Method
Based on a New Adaptive Wavelet Packet Thresholding Function”
4
Appeal 2017-001460
Application 14/313,748
published by IEEE).2 Similarly, Appellant provided articles to support the
assertion that “speckle” is well known in the art (App. Br. 23—24).
Appellant further provided direction of the known applications of speckle
and thresholding in the Specification (App. Br. 24).
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and for
the same reasons, the rejections of claims 2—22.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding that the limitation of “generating one
or more reference images by applying a thresholding function to the one or
more first inspection images in order to at least partially isolate a speckle
signal component of the one or more first inspection images,” as recited in
claim 1, is not enabled under 35U.S.C§112 first paragraph.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—22 is
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
REVERSED
2 Should there be further prosecution, the Examiner should consider
applying prior art to reject the claims since Appellant has, in essence,
admitted that one skilled in the art would know to apply thresholding
functions in image processing to isolate a first class of the image from noise.
5