Ex Parte Veldman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 18, 2016

12785310 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
121785,310
81088
FIJI/BSTZ
7590
FILING DATE
05/21/2010
05/18/2016
Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Andrei Veldman
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.
8536.P009 1645
EXAMINER
OCHOA, JUAN CARLOS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2123
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
05/18/2016 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 ANDREI VELDMAN and JOHN J. HENCH
Appeal2014-005885
Application 12/785,310
Technology Center 2100
Before JOESPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG, and
ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-
part.
Exemplary Claims
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claims 1 and 7, which are reproduced below with lettered
bracketing added and disputed limitations emphasized:
Appeal2010-003279
Application 12/785,310
1. A method for improving computation etliciency for
diffraction signals in optical metrology, the method comprising:
simulating a set of spatial harmonics orders for a grating
structure;
[A J truncating the set of spatial harmonics orders to
provide a first truncated set of spatial harmonics orders based
on a first pattern, the first truncated set of spatial harmonics
orders having fewer spatial harmonics orders than the set of
spatial harmonics orders; and, subsequently,
[BJ modifYing, by an iterative process, the first
truncated set of spatial harmonics orders to provide a second
truncated set of spatial harmonics orders based on a second
pattern, the second pattern different from the first pattern; and
providing a simulated spectrum based on the second
truncated set of spatial harmonics orders.
7. A method for improving computation efficiency for
diffraction signals in optical metrology, the method comprising:
simulating a set of spatial harmonics orders for a grating
structure;
truncating the set of spatial harmonics orders to provide a
first truncated set of spatial harmonics orders based on a first
pattern, the first truncated set of spatial harmonics orders having
fewer spatial harmonics orders than the set of spatial harmonics
orders; and, subsequently,
[CJ subtracting, by an iterative process, one or more
individual spatial harmonics orders from the first truncated set
of spatial harmonics orders to provide a second truncated set of
spatial harmonics orders based on a second pattern, the second
pattern different from the first pattern;
[DJ adding, by an iterative process, one or more
individual spatial harmonics orders to the second truncated set
of spatial harmonics orders to provide a third truncated set of
spatial harmonics orders based on a third pattern, the third pattern
different from the first and second patterns; and
2
Appeal2010-003279
Application 12/785,310
providing a simulated spectrum based on the third
truncated set of spatial harmonics orders.
The Examiner's Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Walsh (US 7,990,549 B2; issued Aug. 2, 2011 and filed
Dec. 2, 2009) in view of Jin (US 7,428,060 B2; issued Sept. 23, 2008).
Final Act. 3-9; Ans. 2-8.
Appellants' Contentions1
Appellants contend (Br. 3-9) that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Walsh and Jin for numerous reasons, including:
and
( 1) Jin fails to disclose limitation [A J recited in claim 1 (Br. 5);
(2) Jin fails to disclose limitation [BJ recited in claim 1 (Br. 4);
(3) Jin fails to disclose limitation [CJ recited in claim 7 (Br. 7);
(4) Jin fails to disclose limitation [DJ recited in claim 7 (Br. 7);
(5) Jin fails to disclose both limitations [CJ and [DJ recited in
claim 7 (and as similarly recited in claim 17), and more specifically,
1 Appellants do not present separate patentability arguments for dependent
claims 2---6 and 11-16 (Br. 6). Appellants' arguments are drawn to the
features recited in independent claim 1 and as similarly recited in
independent claim 11. In view of the foregoing, we select claim 1 as
representative of the group of claims 1---6 and 11-16. Appellants present
separate patentability arguments for independent claim 7, and rely on those
arguments as to the patentability of claims 8-10 and 17-20 (Br. 7-8).
Appellants' arguments are drawn to the features recited in independent claim
7 and as similarly recited in independent claim 17.
3
Appeal2010-003279
Application 12/785,310
Jin fails to disclose these limitations in sequential order- meaning
limitation [DJ following the performance of limitation [CJ (Br. 7).
Reply Brief
Appellants have not filed a Reply Brief, or otherwise rebutted the
Examiner's response (see Ans. 8-23) as to the teachings of Jin (including the
new citations to Jin's Abstract; columns 5, 10, and 12; and Figures 2D, 5,
and 6) with evidence or persuasive argument.
Issues on Appeal
(1) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1---6 and 11-16 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Walsh and
Jin because Jin fails to teach or suggest limitations [A J and [BJ recited in
representative claim 1; and
(2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 7-10 and 17-20 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Walsh and
Jin because Jin fails to teach or suggest limitations [CJ and [DJ in sequential
order as recited in independent claim 7, and as similarly recited in
independent claim 1 7?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 3-9; Ans. 2-
8) in light of Appellants' contention in the Appeal Brief (Br. 3-9) that the
Examiner has erred, as well as the Examiner's response (Ans. 8-23) to
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief. Notably, independent claims 1
and 11 (which recite "truncating" and "modifying" spatial harmonics orders)
are much broader than remaining independent claims 7 and 1 7 (which recite
the more specific functions of "subtracting" and "adding" spatial harmonics
4
Appeal2010-003279
Application 12/785,310
orders). We also note that Jin relates to the very similar field of invention as
Appellants (see Spec. i-fi-f l and 5; Abs.), namely that of optimizing
computational efficiency for simulating diffraction signals in optical
metrology (see Jin Title; Abs.).
With regard to representative claim 1, we concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner, and we adopt as our own (i) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken (Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 2--4), and (ii) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to the Appellants' Appeal
Brief (Ans. 8-19). We agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 2--4)
that Jin discloses limitations [A J and [BJ recited in representative claim 1.
With regard to claims 7-10 and 17-20, we agree that Appellants'
above contentions (Br. 7) that Jin fails to disclose the disputed limitations
[CJ and [DJ in sequential order. Claims 7 and 17 each recite subtracting
spatial harmonics orders from a first truncated set "to provide a second
truncated set" (see e.g., limitation [CJ in claim 7), and then adding spatial
harmonics orders to the second truncated set (see e.g., limitation [DJ in claim
7). Therefore, according to the language recited in claim 7 (and as similarly
recited in claim 17), the performance of limitation [CJ (i.e., providing a
second truncated set) is required to have been performed/completed before
limitation [DJ can be performed, since limitation [DJ must act on the second
truncated set that is produced in limitation [CJ.
In addition, the Examiner (see Ans. 22-23) fails to respond to
Appellants' argument that Jin fails to teach or suggest limitations [CJ and
[DJ recited in claim 7 in sequential order, and makes only conclusory
statements that the recited sequential order is disclosed by Jin's columns 5,
5
Appeal2010-003279
Application 12/785,310
12, and 14 (see Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 6-7 and 22-23). Thus, even if we were
to agree with the Examiner that Jin discloses the individual subtracting and
adding steps of claims 7 and 1 7, the Examiner has not shown these steps to
be performed in sequential order or otherwise responded to Appellants'
argument to that effect argued the Appeal Brief (see Br. 7).
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, we conclude the Examiner (i) did not err in
rejecting claims 1-6 and 11-16; and (ii) erred in rejecting claims 7-10 and
17-20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination
of Walsh and Jin.
DECISION
(1) The Examiner's rejection of claims 1---6 and 11-16 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Walsh and
Jin is affirmed.
(2) The Examiner's rejection of claims 7-10 and 17-20 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Walsh and
Jin 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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6