KLA-Tencor CorporationDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 23, 20212021000342 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/437,409 02/20/2017 Allen Park 5222-23501/P3559C1 4369 61507 7590 07/23/2021 Entropy Matters LLC P.O. Box 2250 NEW YORK, NY 10021 EXAMINER SATANOVSKY, ALEXANDER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2863 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/23/2021 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 ALLEN PARK, ELLIS CHANG, PRASHANT A. AJI, and STEVEN R. LANGE Appeal 2021-000342 Application 15/437,409 Technology Center 2800 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and RAE LYNN GUEST, Administrative Patent Judges. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3 and 19–23. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as KLA-Tencor Corp. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-000342 Application 15/437,409 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method for determining one or more inspection parameters for a wafer inspection recipe (Claim 1), a computer readable medium with a program to perform the method (Claim 2), and a corresponding system configured to perform the method (Claim 3). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-implemented method computer-implemented method for determining one or more inspection parameters for a wafer inspection recipe, comprising: generating a three-dimensional representation of one or more layers of a wafer based on design data; determining one or more inspection parameters for a wafer inspection recipe based on the three-dimensional representation, wherein said generating and said determining are performed by a computer system; extracting two-dimensional design data dips for defects detected using the wafer inspection recipe; and while the wafer is being inspected using the wafer inspection recipe, generating three-dimensional representations for the defects based on output acquired for the defects using the wafer inspection recipe and the two-dimensional design data clips. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Volk et al. US 2005/0004774 A1 Jan. 6, 2005 Kulkarni et al. US 2007/0156379 A1 July 5, 2007 Kim et al. US 2010/0233593 A1 Sep. 16, 2010 Ramani et al. US 7,659,975 B1 Feb. 9, 2010 Appeal 2021-000342 Application 15/437,409 3 REJECTIONS Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 22 112(b) Indefiniteness 1–3 103 Volk, Kulkarni 19–22 103 Volk, Kulkarni, Kim 23 103 Volk, Kulkarni, Ramani OPINION We shall not sustain the Examiner’s § 112 rejection of claim 22 for reasons set out below. On the other hand, upon consideration of the evidence in this appeal and each of Appellant’s contentions as set forth in the Appeal Brief, as well as the Reply Brief, we determine that Appellant has not demonstrated reversible error in the Examiner’s § 103 rejections (e.g., Ans. 4–9). In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining the Board’s long-held practice of requiring Appellants to identify the alleged error in the Examiner’s rejection). We sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejections for the reasons expressed by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following for emphasis. The § 112 rejection Claims are definite if they set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity. It is here where the definiteness of the language employed must be analyzed—not in a vacuum, but always in light of the teachings of the prior art and Appeal 2021-000342 Application 15/437,409 4 of the particular application disclosure as it would be interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1046-47 (CCPA 1971). See also, Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc., 599 F.3d 1343, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (The test for definiteness is whether “those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification”). After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the Examiner, we agree with Appellant that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood what is being claimed. A preponderance of the evidence supports Appellant’s assertions that the Examiner’s rejection should be reversed. The Examiner’s position is that claim 22 is indefinite because the claim refers to the “one or more layers” of claim 3, from which claim 22 depends, as three different layers, and as a result the three layers of claim 22 are somehow in conflict with claim 3’s “one or more layers” (Ans. 3–4; Claims Appendix 15, 18). The Examiner also argues that claim 22’s “a layer that is inspected using the wafer inspection recipe” is best understood to include two other layers, the first being the claimed layer that is not formed on the wafer before the wafer is inspected using the wafer inspection recipe, and the second being the claimed layer that is formed on the wafer before the layer that is inspected using the wafer inspection recipe is formed on the wafer (Final Act. 8–9, Claims Appendix 18). However, the Examiner’s position is not persuasive in this case. Appeal 2021-000342 Application 15/437,409 5 As Appellant explains, Figures 1 and 2 and page 5, line 16 to page 7, line 9 of the Specification describe the various layers recited in claim 22 (Appeal Br. 4–6). Appellant’s disclosure provides clear support for three different layers as recited in claim 22 (see Spec. 5–6 – describing layers 14, 16, and 18 as illustrated in Fig. 2). The Examiner’s position that one of these layers somehow refers to the other two, or that claim 22 improperly narrows the scope of claim 3 (Ans. 3–4; Final Act. 8–9) is not persuasive. Appellant not only provides clear support for the three different layers of claim 22, but Appellant further points out that claim 22’s three recited layers merely narrows the scope of claim 3’s one or more layers, from which claim 22 depends. The Specification explicitly states how the three layers described in claim 22 are constructed in Figure 2 (e.g., see Spec. 5–6). Appellant then properly concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art could readily determine the metes and bounds of the limitations recited in claim 22, particularly in light of the identified relevant portions of the Specification and Drawings (Appeal Br. 4–6). The Examiner has not sufficiently explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that claim 22 refers to three different layers. In light of these circumstances, we agree with Appellant that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claim language in light of the Specification, as discussed throughout the prosecution history. Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s § 112 rejection of all the claims based on indefiniteness. Appeal 2021-000342 Application 15/437,409 6 The § 103 rejections In assessing whether a claim to a combination of prior art elements or steps would have been obvious, the question to be asked is whether the improvement of the claim is more than the predictable use of prior art elements or steps according to their established functions. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). “[T]he analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418. As found by the Examiner, the evidence fully supports that a skilled artisan knew how to construct a process for generating three-dimensional representations for defects using a wafer inspection recipe and two- dimensional design data clips, while the wafer is being inspected (Ans. 6–9; Final Act. 9–13). Appellant however disputes the Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious to incorporate into Volk extracting two- dimensional design data clips for detecting defects using the wafer inspection recipe, as exemplified in Kulkarni (Appeal Br. 8–9). Appellant also argues that neither Volk nor Kulkarni teaches that the three-dimensional defect profiles are generated while a wafer is being inspected (Appeal Br. 6– 7). However, these arguments are not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection because they fail to adequately consider the prior art as a whole, and the inferences that one of ordinary skill would have drawn therefrom, and thus does not adequately address the Examiner’s obviousness position (see generally Ans.). Appeal 2021-000342 Application 15/437,409 7 The Examiner points to respective portions of Volk that provide a teaching of the generation of three-dimensional defect profiles which occurs during or while a wafer is being inspected (Ans. 4–9). Specifically, the Examiner points to Volk’s generating a three-dimensional representation of a defect while a defect is under review, and equates this to a teaching of the claimed “while the wafer is being inspected” (Ans. 4, 6–8, e.g. see Volk, ¶¶ 97, 121, 131 (the paragraphs taken together effectively explain that defects are characterized as three-dimensional representations, which occurs during the inspection process)). The Examiner also points to Volk’s teaching of detecting defects during the inspection of a wafer, generally (Ans. 7–8, Volk, e.g., ¶¶ 121, 131; see also ¶¶ 20–23, 53, 61–68, 121–131). The Examiner then points to Kulkarni to exemplify its dynamic ability to review defects as an essential part of a wafer inspection process (Kulkarni, e.g., see ¶¶ 12, 495, 505, 640). The Examiner then concludes that these teachings of Volk and Kulkarni, respectively, can each be construed as providing a teaching involving inspecting for defects while a wafer is being inspected (Ans. 6–8). “[T]he PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. . . . Therefore, we look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “[A]s applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee.” Id. While Appellant acknowledges the portions of Volk that discuss defects under review and a wafer inspection process generally (Appeal Br. Appeal 2021-000342 Application 15/437,409 8 6–8, Volk, e.g. see ¶¶ 121, 131), Appellant contends that the Examiner’s cited portions of Volk describing defects under review and a wafer/reticle inspection process are not equivalent in meaning to the claimed “while the wafer is being inspected” (Reply Br. 3–4, citing to Volk, ¶ 97). However, Appellant has not explained with any specificity why the Examiner erred in determining that the claim language “during inspection” encompasses Volk’s process. Notably, we do not find—and Appellant has not directed our attention to—any limiting definitions in the Specification, nor does Appellant provide any persuasive reasoning or credible evidence to establish that the Examiner’s interpretation of the language of claim 1 (and corresponding language of claims 2 and 3) is unreasonable. Therefore, in light of the breadth of the claim language and the teachings of the prior art as a whole, we find Appellant’s argument that Volk’s “defect under review” and “during inspection of the wafer” (Volk, ¶ 61, 97, 121, 131) is not the same as the claimed “while the wafer is being inspected” (Claims Appendix, 14–15), is not persuasive of reversible error. Furthermore, as aptly pointed out by the Examiner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily inferred that it would have been obvious to reconstruct Volk’s generating 3D representations for defects in a wafer (Ans. 7–8, Final Act. 9 ̶11, e.g., see Volk, ¶¶ 58, 121, 130 ̶132) by incorporating Kulkarni’s two-dimensional design layout clips (Ans. 8 ̶9, Final Act. 11 ̶13, Kulkarni, ¶¶ 199, 230, 364). As explained by the Examiner, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Volk and Kulkarni because Kulkarni provides the ability to use the two-dimensional design layout clips which would improve the inspection process of Volk by altering the sensitivity and speed of inspection Appeal 2021-000342 Application 15/437,409 9 processing in real-time (Ans. 8–9). The Examiner further explains that Kulkarni’s 2D design layout clips help to improve the wafer inspection recipe of Volk by improving the reliability and quality of the wafer inspection process by providing a higher probability of finding and locating particular types of defects in the design (Final Act. 11–13). See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425–26 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”); see also, e.g., In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264– 65 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (it is well established that in evaluating references it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the references but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom). Accordingly, we sustain the § 103 rejection of all of the claims on appeal. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision is AFFIRMED. Appeal 2021-000342 Application 15/437,409 10 DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 22 112(b) Indefiniteness 22 1–3 103 Volk, Kulkarni 1–3 19–22 103 Volk, Kulkarni, Kim 19–22 23 103 Volk, Kulkarni, Ramani 23 Overall Outcome 1–3, 19–23 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation