Ex Parte Strang

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 3, 2010

10673467 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 3, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte ERIC J. STRANG
__________

Appeal 2009-007898
Application 10/673,467
Technology Center 2100
__________

Decided: March 3, 2010
__________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, LANCE LEONARD BARRY, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-54 and 58-60. Claims 55-57 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Appeal 2009-007898
Application 10/673,467

2
The Invention
The disclosed invention relates generally to first principles simulation
in semiconductor manufacturing processes (Spec. 1).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of controlling a process performed by a
semiconductor processing tool, comprising:
inputting process data related to an actual process being
performed by the semiconductor processing tool;
inputting a first principles physical model including a set of
computer-encoded differential equations, the first principles physical
model describing at least one of a basic physical or chemical attribute
of the semiconductor processing tool;
performing first principles simulation for the actual process
being performed during performance of the actual process using the
physical model to provide a first principles simulation result in
accordance with the process data relating to the actual process being
performed in order to simulate the actual process being performed,
said first principles simulation result being produced in a time frame
shorter in time than the actual process being performed;
using the first principles simulation result obtained during
performance of the actual process to build an empirical model; and
selecting at least one of the first principles simulation result and
the empirical model to control the actual process being performed by
the semiconductor processing tool.

The References
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence in
support of the rejections:
Chen US 5,719,796 Feb. 17, 1998
Sonderman US 6,802,045 B1 Oct. 05, 2004
(filed Apr. 19, 2001)
Appeal 2009-007898
Application 10/673,467

3
Nikoonahad US 6,812,045 B1 Nov. 02, 2004
(filed Sep. 20, 2001)

V. K. Jain and A. D. Snyder, Mathematic-Physical Engine: Parallel
Processing for Modeling and Simulation of Physical Phenomena,
1994 Int’l Symposium on Parallel Architectures, Algorithms and
Networks (ISPAN), 366-373 (IEEE, 1994) (“Jain”).

N. Yonemura, et al., Heat Analysis on Insulated Metal Substrates,
1996 Industry Applications Conference, Thirty-First IAS Annual
Meeting, IAS ‘96, Vol 3, 1407-1410 (IEEE, 1996) (“Yonemura”).

The Rejections
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1-21, 23, 25-48, 50, 52-54, and 58-60
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sonderman,
Chen, and Jain.
2. The Examiner rejects claims 22 and 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sonderman, Chen, Jain, and Yonemura.
3. The Examiner rejects claims 24 and 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sonderman, Chen, Jain, and Nikoonahad.

ISSUE
The Examiner finds that Sonderman discloses performing a first
principles simulation for the actual process being performed during
performance of the actual process (Ans. 4, 11).
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s finding (App. Br. 16-26).
Appeal 2009-007898
Application 10/673,467

4
Did Appellant demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that
Sonderman discloses performing a first principles simulation for the actual
process being performed during performance of the actual process?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Facts (FF) are shown by a preponderance
of the evidence.
1. Sonderman discloses “a method and an apparatus for implementing a
control simulation environment into a manufacturing environment”
(Abstract).
2. Sonderman discloses a “process control environment 180, a
manufacturing/processing environment 170, and a simulation
environment 210” (col. 4, ll. 49-51).
3. Sonderman discloses that the “simulation environment 210 allows
for testing various manufacturing factors in order to study and
evaluate the interaction between the manufacturing factors” (col. 4,
ll. 59-61).
4. Sonderman discloses that the “manufacturing environment 170 can
send metrology data results into the simulation environment 210”
and that the “simulation environment 210 can then use the metrology
data results and perform various tests and calculations to provide . . .
modified control parameters to the process control environment 180”
(col. 5, ll. 1-6).
Appeal 2009-007898
Application 10/673,467

5
5. Sonderman discloses that the “process control environment 180
sends the modified or adjusted process control parameters to the
manufacturing environment 170 for further processing of
semiconductor wafers” (col. 5, ll. 7-10).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Obviousness
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-
18 (1966).
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Sonderman discloses “performing first
principle simulation for the actual process being performed during
performance of actual process (Sonderman: Col.7 Lines 4-7; Col.3 Lines 56-
63; Fig. 1-3)” (Ans. 4). However, Sonderman discloses simulation, process,
and manufacturing environments (FF 1) in which the simulation and process
environments produce process parameters that the manufacturing
Appeal 2009-007898
Application 10/673,467

6
environment uses to perform processes (FF 2-3). The manufacturing
environment may thus produce metrology data that may be returned to the
simulation environment to produce updated process parameters for future
processing of semiconductor wafers by the manufacturing environment (FF
4-5). Thus, Sonderman discloses a system in which a simulator (i.e.,
simulation environment) produces parameters for use in a manufacturing
environment (i.e., an “actual process”). Since the manufacturing
environment utilizes parameters generated by the simulation environment,
the simulation environment must complete processing prior to the
performance of the actual process by the manufacturing environment such
that the manufacturing environment may utilize the parameters generated by
the simulation environment. Therefore, we cannot agree with the Examiner
the Sonderman discloses that the simulation is performed during the
performance of the actual process, as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Sonderman discloses performing a simulation
during performance of the actual process because Sonderman discloses that
“target values are then used to generate new control inputs, XTi on line 805
to control a subsequent process of a silicon wafer Si” (Ans. 15; Sonderman,
col. 9, ll. 44-46). However, Sonderman discloses applying values to a
subsequent process. We interpret the term “subsequent” to indicate a
process that follows a prior (or current) process. Since the values generated
in Sonderman are generated for a subsequent process (i.e., a process to be
Appeal 2009-007898
Application 10/673,467

7
performed in the future) rather than generating parameters for a process that
is currently being performed, we cannot agree with the Examiner’s finding.
Claims 28 and 58 recite similar features as claim 1. Also, the
Examiner does not find that Jain, Yonemura, Chen, or Nikoonahad disclose
or suggest the disputed feature discussed above.
Accordingly, we conclude that Appellant has met the burden of
showing that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 28, and
58 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), and of claims 2-27, 29-54, 59, and 60 which
depend therefrom.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
Appellant has demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding that
Sonderman discloses performing a first principles simulation for the actual
process being performed during performance of the actual process.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-54 and 58-60
as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

REVERSED

Appeal 2009-007898
Application 10/673,467

8

msc

OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314