Ex Parte Ummethala et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 1, 201612573786 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 1, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/573,786 10/05/2009 61506 7590 09/01/2016 OKAMOTO & BENEDICTO LLP P.O. BOX 641330 SAN JOSE, CA 95164 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR U pendra UMMETHALA 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. 10011.009200 (P3375) 6836 EXAMINER DALBO, MICHAEL J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2865 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 09/01/2016 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 UPENDRA UMMETHALA, NOAH BAREKET, and CHRISTOPHER BEVIS Appeal2015-000227 Application 12/573,786 Technology Center 2800 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Applicants (hereinafter the "Appellants") 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a decision of the Primary Examiner to reject claims 1--4, 6-10, 26, 27, and 29-31.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 The Appellants state that the real party in interest is "KLA-Tencor Corporation" (Appeal Brief filed May 2, 2014, hereinafter "Appeal Br.," 2). Additionally, the Specification (hereinafter "Spec.") states that the United States Government has a paid-up license as well as other rights in the invention "as provided for by the terms of Contract No. HROOl-06-03-0008 awarded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency" (Spec. 1, 11. 10-13). 2 See Appeal Br. 5-31; Non-Final Office Action mailed December 4, 2013, hereinafter "Non-Final Act.," 2-15. Appeal2015-000227 Application 12/573,786 We affirm. BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to an apparatus for holding a semiconductor wafer, wherein the apparatus includes elements for measuring position and/ or motion using surface micro structure information on a moving surface (Spec. 3, 1. 18--4, 1. 15; Abstract). Representative claim 1 is reproduced from page 12 of the Appeal Brief (Claims Appendix), with key limitations indicated in italicized text, as follows: 1. An apparatus for holding a semiconductor wafer, the apparatus comprising: a rotary wafer stage comprising a metal chuck with a center area for holding the semiconductor wafer; a detector configured to generate an output signal which varies in correspondence with surface micro-structure of a moving metal surface of the metal chuck of the rotary wafer stage along a circle outside the center area as the metal chuck is rotated; and a correlation filter configured to receive the output signal, apply cross-correlation between the output signal and a calibrated signal, and generate a measured position signal. THE REJECTIONS Claims 1, 10, 27, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Matsui et al. (hereinafter "Matsui"), 3 Mulligan et al. (hereinafter "Mulligan"),4 Wang et al. (hereinafter "Wang"),5 and Oblizajek 3 US 6,160,615 issued December 12, 2000. 4 US 6, 164,633 issued December 26, 2000. 5 US 2008/0149816 Al published June 26, 2008. 2 Appeal2015-000227 Application 12/573,786 , "I /"I • £"", l L ,,-..... -t -t • • -t "'ltll>. f:.. /"'- T -.---, • -t .l , ,..... ,_, -.---, • "I .l et al. ~neremaner ··uonzaJeK"F ~1'\Jon-1'ma1 Act. L-1; bxammer,s Answer mailed August 7, 2014, hereinafter "Ans.," 2---6). Claims 2--4, 6-9, 26, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on various grounds based on these same four references further in view of one or more additional references (Non-Final Act. at 7-15). DISCUSSION I. Grouping of Claims The Appellants focus their arguments on claim 1 (Appeal Br. 5-10). Therefore, consistent with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), our ruling on the rejection of claim 1 is dispositive for all claims on appeal. II. The Examiner's Obviousness Analysis The Examiner found that Matsui describes an apparatus for holding a semiconductor wafer, wherein the apparatus comprises a rotary wafer stage including a chuck and a detector/optical encoder configured to generate an output signal that varies in correspondence with the movement of the rotary wafer stage along a circle as the rotary wafer stage is rotated (Non-Final Act 3). The Examiner ascertained three differences between Matsui's disclosure and the subject matter defined by claim 1: (1) that "Matsui is silent as to [whether] the chuck is a metal chuck;" (2) that Matsui's detector/optical encoder is not configured to generate an output signal varying in correspondence with surface microstructure of a moving metal surface of the metal chuck; and (3) that Matsui does not describe a correlation filter as recited in the claim (id.). To resolve these three differences, the Examiner relied on Mulligan, Wang, and Oblizajek, respectively (id. at 4---6; Ans. 3). 6 US 2010/0057396 Al published March 4, 2010. 3 Appeal2015-000227 Application 12/573,786 First, the Examiner found that ivlulligan teaches a vacuum chuck made of aluminum (Non-Final Act. at 4). The Examiner determined that "[i]t would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art ... to modify the invention of Matsui with the disclosure of Mulligan for the advantageous benefit of utilizing a well-known aluminum vacuum chuck to secure the wafer[,]" as "[a]luminum is readily available, cost effective, and durable" (id.; see also Ans. 4). Second, the Examiner found that Wang discloses a rotary optical encoder configured to generate an output signal that varies in correspondence with the surface microstructure of a moving metal surface of a rotating base or shaft along a circle outside the center area and that Wang teaches placing the encoding pattern on a surface with a larger radius increases the resolution accuracy of the encoder (Non-Final Act. 4; Ans. 4). Based on these findings, the Examiner concluded that "[i]t would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill ... to modify the invention of Matsui in view of Mulligan with the disclosure of Wang, i.e. placing an encoder on the base of the rotating surface, i.e. the recited rotating chuck, for the advantageous benefit of increasing the resolution of the encoder" (Non-Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 5). Third, based on findings regarding Oblizajek's teachings, the Examiner concluded that "[i]t would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art ... to modify the invention Matsui in view of Mulligan and Wang with the disclosure of Oblizajek for the advantageous benefit of using a pattern comparison technique to determine and accurate absolute angular position of the sensor, i.e. accurate position of the rotating stage" (Non-Final Act. 5---6; see also Ans. 5). 4 Appeal2015-000227 Application 12/573,786 III. The Appellants ·Arguments The Appellants contend that Matsui relates to a wafer crystal defect measurement apparatus in which a light receiving optical system 4 receives light reflected from a laser light beam irradiated onto the surface of a silicon wafer 45 and, therefore, "Matsui teaches detecting light reflected from a target wafer, not a moving metal surface of a metal chuck" as required by claim 1 (Appeal Br. 6) (citing Matsui Fig. 1 and col. 5, 11. 11-13). Regarding Mulligan, the Appellants' sole argument is that "Mulligan also does not teach detecting light reflected from a moving metal surface of a metal chuck" (id.) (citing Mulligan col. 6, 11. 27-30). Regarding Wang, the Appellants summarize certain teachings in the reference and then contend that "Wang also does not teach detecting light reflected from a moving metal surface of a metal chuck" (id.) (citing Wang i-fi-126, 27, 34, 35). Similarly, the Appellants state that "Oblizajek discloses using a magnetic-type rotary sensor assembly 18 that is mounted concentrically with a wheel assembly 1 O" and then argue that "Oblizajek also does not teach detecting light reflected from a moving metal surface of a metal chuck" (id.) (citing Oblizajek Fig. 1 and i-f 19). IV. Dispositive Issue Thus, the dispositive issue arising from the Appellants' contentions is whether the Examiner articulated a sufficient reason with some rational underpinning to support a conclusion that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to modify Matsui' s apparatus in view of Mulligan and Wang to include "a detector configured to generate an output signal which varies in correspondence with surface micro-structure of a moving metal surface of the metal chuck of the rotary wafer stage along a 5 Appeal2015-000227 Application 12/573,786 circle outside the center area as the metal chuck is rotated'' (emphasis added), as required by claim 1. V. Opinion For the reasons given by the Examiner and those set forth below, the Appellants' arguments fail to reveal any reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("it has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejections"). Matsui' s Figure 2 is reproduced below: FIG.2 l1c 13 ROTATING MECHANISM LI NEAR MOVING MECHANISM 23 24 ) 25 s 0 m [ 15 I ! ! 21 ! ~ ~ ( I~--- "--~---'I I I 22 20 ) ...---.......... r'...., ,__.._.__,_,...., 14 AIR EVACUATION CYLINDER CONTROL VALVE STAGE BASE Matsui' s Figure 2 is described as providing a side view of a wafer crystal defect measurement apparatus, wherein the apparatus includes, inter alia, a wafer chuck 11 (for supporting wafer 45 by vacuum), which is rotated together with a rotating shaft 12 by a rotating mechanism 13 (col. 5, 11. 23- 28). Although Matsui does not teach that the wafer chuck 11 is made of metal, the Examiner correctly found that Mulligan teaches a vacuum chuck 6 Appeal2015-000227 Application 12/573,786 formed from aluminum, which the Examiner determined-without challenge from the Appellants-"is readily available, cost effective, and durable" (Non-Final Act. 4) (citing Mulligan col. 6, 11. 27-30). Therefore, we detect no error in the Examiner's conclusion that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have constructed Matsui' s wafer chuck 11, which supports wafer 45 by vacuum, with aluminum as shown in Mulligan's vacuum chuck in order to realize the "advantageous benefit[s] [i.e., ready availability, cost- effectiveness, and durability] of utilizing a well-known aluminum vacuum chuck to secure the wafer" (Non-Final Act. 4). As for the "detector" limitations recited in claim 1, the Appellants are correct that Matsui' s light receiving optical system 4 (Fig. 1) irradiates light onto a surface of the wafer 45 rather than a moving metal surface of a metal chuck (col. 5, 11. 4--21 ). But Matsui further teaches that "[i]n regard to the rotating mechanism 13, a rotating speed and a stopping angle of the rotary motor are controlled by receiving rotating angle information of the rotating shaft 12 (the wafer chuck 11) from the rotary encoder" (col. 6, 11. 24--28). Wang teaches a calibration system in which the overall resolution of a rotary encoder can be improved significantly (i.e., 14 times greater than commercially-available ERP 880 encoder) by providing a conventional encoder pattern 112 having a pitch (e.g., 1 µm) on a conventional encoder 110 and an encoder pattern 232 having pitches of 4 µm or less on a radial periphery (area 128) of a substrate 120 of rotary structure 100 (Fig. 1; i-fi-1 4, 25, 26, 58---64). In view of the similarities in the shapes of Matsui's wafer chuck 11 and Wang's substrate 120, we agree with the Examiner that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have implemented Wang's encoder patterns having micron-sized pitches in Matsui' s rotary encoder 7 Appeal2015-000227 Application 12/573,786 with a reasonable expectation of improving resolution as suggested by Wang. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) ("[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill."). Because the Appellants' arguments amount merely to an attack of the references individually without taking account of their collective teachings, we uphold the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references."). SUMMARY The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4, 6-10, 26, 27, and 29- 3 1 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)(l). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation