Ex Parte Wang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2016

13285679 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/285,679 10/31/2011
43859 7590 09/01/2016
SLATER MATSIL, LLP
17950 PRESTON ROAD, SUITE 1000
DALLAS, TX 75252
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Chien Rhone Wang
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.
TS Ml l-0458CP1 1262
EXAMINER
PAN, YUHUIR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2127
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2016 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):
docketing@slatermatsil.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHIEN RHONE WANG, TZU-CHENG LIN,
YU-JEN CHENG, CHIH-WEI LAI,
HUNG-PIN CHANG, and TSANG-JIUH WU
Appeal2015-002723
Application 13/285,679
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ADAM J. PYONIN
and AMBER L. HAGY Administrative Patent Judges.
Per Curiam.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1-20. Appeal Brief 5. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2015-002723
Application 13/285,679
Introduction
Appellants' invention relates to a processing a wafer and includes
"executing a virtual metrology model of [a] process tool to estimate an
estimated characteristic of the wafer achieved during the processing."
Abstract.
Representative Claim (Disputed limitations emphasized)
1. An apparatus comprising:
a process tool having an output for signaling in-situ
measurements of physical parameters during processing of a
wafer in the process tool, the process tool having an input for
receiving a signal indicating a modification of a recipe for the
processing during the processing of the wafer; and
a programmable processor for executing a virtual
metrology model of the process tool to estimate an estimated
characteristic of the wafer achieved during the processing, the
estimated characteristic being based on the in-situ
measurements and the virtual metrology model, and the
programmable processor having an output for transmitting the
signal when the estimated characteristic exceeds a
predetermined threshold based on a target characteristic.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-5, 9-11, 15, 16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102( e) as being anticipated by Venugopal (US Patent Application Number
2010/0332011 Al; published December 30, 2010). Final Rejection 3.
Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Venugopal, in view of Cheng (US Patent Number
7,359,759 B2; issued April 15, 2008). Final Rejection 6.
2
Appeal2015-002723
Application 13/285,679
Claims 6-8, 12-14, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Venugopal, in view of Solis (US Patent Number
5,925,577; issued July 20, 1999). Final Rejection 8.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Final Rejection (mailed April 10, 2014), the Advisory Action
(mailed June 18, 2014), the Appeal Brief (filed September 19, 2014), the
Answer (mailed November 7, 2014), and the Reply Brief (filed January 7,
2015) for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only
those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs.
Appellants argue Examiner error because "V enugopal fails to disclose
a comparison of an estimated characteristic ofa wafer with a threshold."
Appeal Brief 5 (emphasis in original). Particularly, Appellants contend "by
Venugopal' s express terms, step 512 checks the process" and "the flow of
Figure 5 would be illogical if virtual metro logy results of a substrate are
used in step 512 because the virtual metrology results can be in a desired
state but processing could continue." Appeal Brief 7.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Although
Appellants argue the reference fails to disclose a comparison of an estimated
characteristic of a wafer with a threshold, the Examiner finds, and we agree,
that Venugopal teaches "the in-situ control process may provide the tool
with virtual metrology capability for determining the state of a processed
substrate." See Venugopal i-f 96, cited in Advisory Action 2. 1 Thus
1 We note that 37 C.F.R. § 41.39(a)(l) states in-part that "[a]n examiner's
answer is deemed to incorporate all of the grounds of rejection set forth in
3
Appeal2015-002723
Application 13/285,679
Venugopal teaches metrology in which "virtual measurements are about the
state of a substrate" (Advisory Action 2), and also teaches the comparison of
"virtual 'measurements' against a predefined threshold." Venugopal i-f 73.
Appellants' arguments are non-persuasive as the arguments do not address
Venugopal's express teaching linking a virtual metrology model to
determining the state of a processed substrate. See Appeal Brief 5-7, Reply
Brief 1-3. Particularly, Appellants' argument that Venugopal's step 514
(which determines whether the process has ended) has no purpose when a
substrate virtual metro logy model is used (see Appeal Brief 7) is
unpersuasive because the argument assumes additional processing would
damage the substrate. This argument contradicts both Venugopal (see, e.g.,
Venugopal Figure 5) and Appellants' disclosure, which admits several
possible outcomes (including additional processing) after the model
indicates an estimated wafer characteristic is within the target threshold. See
Figure 4 step 49.
Therefore, we affirm the Examiner's anticipation rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as independent claims 9 and 15 commensurate
in scope, as well as the rejections of claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 not
separately argued. See Appeal Brief 8.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20.
the Office action from which the appeal is taken (as modified by any
advisory action and pre-appeal brief conference decision)" (emphasis
added).
4
Appeal2015-002723
Application 13/285,679
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
5