Hermes Microvision, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 4, 2021

2021002029 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 2021)

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.
16/047,987 07/27/2018 Weiming REN 14261.0028-00000 2949
148366 7590 10/04/2021
Finnegan/ASML
901 New York Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20001
EXAMINER
CHOI, JAMES J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2881
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2021 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):
regional-desk@finnegan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte WEIMING REN, XUEDONG LIU, XUERANG HU,
XINAN LUO, and ZHONGWEI CHEN

____________________
Appeal 2021-002029
Application 16/047,9871
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5, and 7–12. See Final Act. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 An oral hearing was held September 23, 2021. A transcript will be made
of Record in due course.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appeal Brief identifies ASML Netherlands B.V., as
the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2021-002029
Application 16/047,987

2
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention is directed to a particle beam system
comprising multiple primary beams and multiple secondary beams and a
beam separator used to separate the multiple secondary beams from the
multiple primary beams and direct the multiple secondary beams towards a
detector placed off-axis. See Spec. para. 6.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A charged particle beam apparatus comprising:
a source configured to provide a primary charged particle
beam;
a source conversion unit configured to form a plurality of
parallel images of the source using a plurality of beamlets of the
primary charged particle beam;
a first projection system with an objective lens and
configured to project the plurality of parallel images onto a
sample and therefore form a plurality of primary probe spots
thereon with the plurality of beamlets;
a beam separator configured to separate the plurality of
beamlets and a plurality of secondary charged particle beams
generated from the sample by the plurality of primary probe
spots;
a detection device with a plurality of detection elements;
a secondary projection system configured to focus the
plurality of secondary charged particle beams onto the detection
device and form a plurality of secondary probe spots thereon,
and the plurality of secondary probe spots are detected by the
plurality of detection elements; and
a first dispersion device arranged upstream of the beam
separator and configured to generate a plurality of first primary
beam dispersions to the plurality of beamlets, wherein the
plurality of first primary beam dispersions is adjusted to cancel
Appeal 2021-002029
Application 16/047,987

3
impacts of a plurality of second primary beam dispersions
generated by the beam separator to the plurality of primary
probe spots,
wherein the first dispersion device comprises a first
electrostatic deflector and a first magnetic deflector respectively
exerting a first force and a second force on each of the plurality
of beamlets, the first force and the second force are opposite to
each other and form the corresponding first primary beam
dispersion.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Frosien (“Frosien II”) US 2012/0006997 Al Jan. 12, 2012
Frosien (“Frosien I”) US 2015/0155134 Al June 4, 2015
REJECTIONS

Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1, 2, 5, 7–12 103 Frosien I, Frosien II

ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites in pertinent part “a first dispersion device arranged
upstream of the beam separator and configured to generate a plurality of
first primary beam dispersions to the plurality of beamlets . . . to cancel
impacts of a plurality of second primary beam dispersions generated by the
beam separator to the plurality of primary probe spots.” See claim 1
(emphasis added).
Appellant argues inter alia that the Examiner’s finding,
Appeal 2021-002029
Application 16/047,987

4
that “the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term ‘dispersion’
encompasses beam path divergence from a main axis,” is improper because
it essentially equates “dispersion” with “deflection.” Appeal Br. 14.
Appellant explains that a component that diverts a beam path so that its
output trajectory is different from its input trajectory is simply a deflector.
Id. Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
“dispersion” generated by a beam separator to mean more than simply
deflection. Id.
Appellant points us to the Specification defining “dispersion” as
involving energy-dependent behavior that may “deform the round
probe spot of a primary beam into an oblong shape.” See Appeal Br. 14
(citing Spec. paras. 7, 39, 48, 56). The Specification explains that beam 210
having an energy spread of ΔV that passes through beam separator 222
disperses into constituent parts ranging from beam portion 230
corresponding to energy Vo - ΔV/2 to beam portion 234 corresponding to
energy Vo + ΔV/2. Appeal Br. 14–15 (citing Spec. para. 39). Appellant
explains that the dispersion generated by a beam separator may cause a
beam to disperse into a broader beam with dispersed energy due to the
energy differences in constituent portions of the beamlet (e.g., energies of
individual electrons). Id.
Appellant explains that the “dispersion” being energy-dependent
behavior is consistent with the understanding of ordinary skill in the art,
because as discussed in Frosien II, dispersion “result[s] in portions of beam
101 with different energies striking the sample 130 at different locations.”
Frosien II. See Appeal Br. 15 (citing Frosien II para. 41).
Appeal 2021-002029
Application 16/047,987

5
The Examiner provides a Merriam Webster dictionary definition
stating, in pertinent part “physics: the separation of light into colors by
refraction or diffraction with formation of a spectrum
also: the separation of radiation . . . into components in accordance with
some varying characteristics (such as energy).” Ans. 6. The Examiner finds
that two definitions are provided under “physics” wherein the first is
exclusive to light radiation (photons) and is inapplicable here, and the
second explicitly states that the radiation is separated into components
according to “‘some varying characteristic (such as energy),’ (emphasis
added), indicating that energy is NOT the ONLY possible parameter for
separation that falls into the definition of ‘dispersion.’” Ans. 6 (italics
added; boldface omitted). The Examiner concludes that the “energy
dispersion” is a narrower term than “dispersion” generally, and this “energy
dispersion” is not claimed. Id.
In response, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s assertion that one of
the Merriam Webster definitions “is exclusive to light radiation (photons)
and is inapplicable here” is incorrect because different colors of light
correspond to different energies of radiation in the electromagnetic
spectrum. Reply Br. 6. Appellant explains that just as a beam of light is
dispersed into different colors, radiation is “dispersed” by having different
components separated according to energy. Id.
We agree with Appellant’s argument. The scope of the claims in
patent applications are not determined solely on the basis of the claim
language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction in
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in
the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
Appeal 2021-002029
Application 16/047,987

6
2004). The specification can be used as a dictionary to learn the meaning of
a term in the patent claim. Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d
1295, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[W]ords in patent claims are given their
ordinary meaning in the usage of the field of the invention, unless the text of
the patent makes clear that a word was used with a special meaning.”)
In the instant case, we agree with Appellant that the Specification
provides a special definition of the term “dispersion” wherein the beam 210
having an energy spread of ΔV that passes through beam separator 222
disperses into constituent parts ranging from beam portion 230
corresponding to energy Vo - ΔV/2 to beam portion 234 corresponding to
energy Vo + ΔV/2. See Appeal Br. 14–15 (citing Spec. para. 39). Thus,
Appellant’s special definition of “dispersion” which is energy dependent
behavior has to be used in interpreting the claim term of “dispersion.” See
Toro, 199 F.3d at 1299. We also agree that the “dispersion” being energy-
dependent behavior is consistent with the understanding of ordinary skill in
the art, because as discussed in Frosien II, dispersion “result[s] in portions of
beam 101 with different energies striking the sample 130 at different
locations.” See Appeal Br. 15 (citing Frosien II para. 41). We further find
reasonable Appellant’s explanation with regard to the Examiner’s proffered
definition that different colors of light correspond to different energies of
radiation in the electromagnetic spectrum, and thus even the proffered
definition is consistent with the term “dispersion” being energy dependent
behavior. See Reply Br. 6.
Thus, we find that the Examiner’s reliance on the claimed
“dispersions” as being equated with “deflections” does not constitute the
broadest but reasonable interpretation in light of Appellant’s special
Appeal 2021-002029
Application 16/047,987

7
definition. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2,
5, and 7–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

CONCLUSION
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5, 7–
12
103 Frosien I, Frosien II 1, 2, 5, 7–
12

REVERSED