KLA-Tencor Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 1, 2021

2021001002 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 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.
15/362,741 11/28/2016 Antonio A. Gellineau KLATP011/P4841US1 1021
128828 7590 11/01/2021
Zilka-Kotab, PC-KLA
1155 N. 1st St., Suite 105
San Jose, CA 95112
EXAMINER
ALKAFAWI, EMAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2865
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2021 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):
zk-uspto@zilkakotab.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ANTONIO A. GELLINEAU, ALEXANDER KUZNETSOV,
JOHN J. HENCH, ANDREI V. SHCHEGROV, and
STILIAN IVANOV PANDEV

Appeal 2021-001002
Application 15/362,741
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

REN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–8, 10–24, and 26–28. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “KLA-
Tencor Corporation.” Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2021-001002
Application 15/362,741

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method, comprising:
simulating, via a processor executing a simulator module,
a set of signals for measuring one or more parameters of a
metrology target, each signal in the set of signals having one or
more configurations for measuring the one or more parameters
of the metrology target;
generating a normalized Jacobian matrix corresponding to
the set of signals;
selecting a subset of signals in the simulated set of signals
that optimizes a performance metric associated with measuring
the one or more parameters of the metrology target, based on the
normalized Jacobian matrix, wherein the subset of signals
includes fewer signals than the set of signals; and
utilizing a metrology tool to collect a measurement for the
one or more parameters of the metrology target using the selected
subset of signals, wherein the metrology tool includes one of:
a spectroscopic ellipsometer (SE);
a SE with multiple angles of illumination;
a SE measuring Mueller matrix elements;
a single-wavelength ellipsometers;
a beam profile ellipsometer;
a beam profile reflectometer;
a broadband reflective spectrometer;
a single-wavelength reflectometer;
an angle-resolved reflectometer;
an imaging system;
a scatterometer;
a small-angle x-ray scattering (SAXS) device;
an x-ray powder diffraction (XRD) device;
an x-ray Fluorescence (XRF) device;
an x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) device;
an x-ray reflectivity (XRR) device;
a Raman spectroscopy device;
a scanning electron microscopy (SEM) device;
Appeal 2021-001002
Application 15/362,741

3
a tunneling electron microscope (TEM) device; and
an atomic force microscope (AFM) device.
Claims Appendix (Appeal Br. 17–18).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner are:
Name Reference Date
Lee US 2014/0358488 Al Dec. 4, 2014
Ferns US 2012/0022836 Al Jan. 26, 2012
Sakano US 2005/0125090 Al Jun. 9, 2005
Zangooie US 2006/0167651 Al Jul. 27, 2006
Bakeman US 2014/0019097 Al Jan. 16, 2014

REJECTIONS
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1, 5–8, 10, 13, 15–
17, 21–24, 26
103 Lee, Ferns
2, 3, 14, 18, 19 103 Lee, Ferns, Collins
4, 20 103 Lee, Ferns, Collins, Sakano
11, 27 103 Lee, Ferns, Zangooie
12, 28 103 Lee, Ferns, Bakeman

OPINION
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 2010 WL 889747, *4 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After having considered
the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s contentions,
Appeal 2021-001002
Application 15/362,741

4
we are not persuaded that reversible error has been identified, and we affirm
the Examiner’s § 103 rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office
Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 12
Appellant acknowledges that “Lee mentions generating a Jacobian
matrix of the set of parameters included in the model of the structure,” but
argues Lee does not teach or suggest “selecting a subset of signals in the
simulated set of signals” as recited in claim 1 because Lee discloses
“selecting a subset of the set of parameters in the model.” Appeal Br. 9
(emphases removed). Appellant argues that “Lee removes correlation
between parameters in a model,” but does not adequately explain why that is
patentably distinguished from the claim language. Id. at 11. Appellant’s
argument is unpersuasive. As the Examiner points out, each of the
parameters in Lee correspond to a particular signal which teaches “signals
for measuring one or more parameters” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 18
(citing Lee ¶¶ 73, 74, 82). The Examiner accordingly finds that “selecting a
defined subset of parameters [as taught in Lee] infers the selections of their
corresponding signal.” Id. at 19. Appellant does not address these paragraphs
of Lee or the Examiner’s findings based on these paragraphs; no reversible
error has therefore been identified. See Appeal Br. 9, 11.
Appellant next argues that Lee does not teach or suggest “selecting a
subset of signals in the simulated set of signals that optimizes a performance
metric” as recited in claim 1. Appellant, however, acknowledges that “Lee

2 Appellant argues for claims 1, 5–8, 13, 15–17, and 21–24 as a group. See
Appeal Br. 8–12. We select claim 1 as the representative claim. See id.; see
also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2021-001002
Application 15/362,741

5
discloses generating a Jacobian matrix of the set of parameters and then
selecting a subset of the set of parameters for the explicit purpose of
‘dynamically removing correlation of two or more parameters.’” Appeal Br.
9 (emphases removed). Appellant argues that “Lee removes correlation
between parameters in a model,” but does not adequately explain why that is
patentably distinguished from the claim language. Id. at 11. Appellant’s
argument is unpersuasive because it does not adequately explain why the
recited optimization of a performance metric excludes Lee’s teaching. As the
Examiner points out, paragraph 26 of Lee states: “a search method is
applicable to optimization-based metrology to dynamically remove the
correlation of model parameters without changing the model of a structure.”
Final Act. 20 (citing Lee ¶ 26). The Examiner additionally finds that Lee
Figures 2 and 3 as well as paragraphs 56–68 also teach this particular
limitation. Id. Appellant does not address these paragraphs and figures of
Lee or the Examiner’s findings based on these paragraphs, no reversible
error has therefore been identified. See Appeal Br. 9, 11.
Appellant’s argument that Ferns does not teach or suggest “selecting a
subset of signals in the simulated set of signals that optimizes a performance
metric” as recited in claim 1 is unpersuasive because the Examiner relies on
Lee for the teaching. Compare Appeal Br. 10–11, with Final Act. 4.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 10, 16, and 263
Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and the dispositive claim limitations
on this appeal are: “utilizing the metrology tool to collect a measurement for

3 Appellant argues for claims 10, 16, and 26 as a group. See Appeal Br. 12–
14. We select claim 10 as the representative claim. See id.; see also 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2021-001002
Application 15/362,741

6
the one or more parameters of one or more additional metrology targets
using the selected subset of signals” and “analyzing the measurements
collected for the metrology target and the one or more additional metrology
targets to determine the one or more parameters for each of the metrology
targets.”
Appellant argues that Lee “does not disclose use of the metrology
tool using the selected subset of signals to collect a measurement for
metrology targets.” Appeal Br. 13 (quoting the “utilizing” and “analyzing”
steps of claim 10). Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive first and foremost
because it does not address the Examiner’s findings which are based on
paragraphs 47, 61–67, 103, as well as claim 1 of Lee. Id. at 13–14
(acknowledging that “the Examiner has relied on Paragraphs 0047, and
0061–0067 in the Lee reference to make a prior art showing of the
appellant’s claimed [utilizing and analyzing steps]” (id. at 12), but only
referring to paragraphs 47, 59–62 of Lee in the argument for claim 10 (id. at
12–13). Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive also because it quotes various
paragraphs of Lee but does not adequately explain why the Examiner
reversibly erred. Such “mere statements of disagreement . . . do not amount
to a developed argument.” SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439
F.3d 1312, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Accordingly, Appellant’s bare reference
to the prior art is not an argument under our rules, and, therefore, it does not
persuade us of any reversible error by the Examiner. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(iv) (requiring that an Appeal Brief include “arguments” that
“shall explain why the examiner erred”).
Appeal 2021-001002
Application 15/362,741

7
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 2, 3, 14, 18, and 194
With regard to claim 2, Appellant argues only that the combined prior
art teaching does not “disclose selecting the subset of signals based on the
normalized Jacobian matrix, as claimed in the independent claims.” Appeal
Br. 14 (emphases removed). Appellant does not present separate arguments
for claim 2 and the rejection of claim 2 is therefore sustained for the same
reason as for claim 1 supra.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 4, 11, 12, 20, 27, and 28
With regard to claim 4, 11, 12, 20, 27, and 28 Appellant argues only
that “such claims are not met by the prior art for the reasons argued with
respect to” claims 10 or claim 2. Appeal Br. 16–17. Appellant does not
present separate arguments for these claims and the rejections are therefore
sustained for the same reason as for the rejection of claims 10 and 2 supra.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5–8, 10, 13,
15–17, 21–24,
26
103 Lee, Ferns 1, 5–8,
10, 13,
15–17,

4 Appellant argues for claims 2, 3, 14, 18, and 19 as a group. See Appeal Br.
14–15. We select claim 2 as the representative claim. See id.; see also 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2021-001002
Application 15/362,741

8
21–24,
26
2, 3, 14, 18, 19 103 Lee, Ferns, Collins 2, 3, 14,
18, 19

4, 20 103 Lee, Ferns, Collins,
Sakano
4, 20
11, 27 103 Lee, Ferns,
Zangooie
11, 27
12, 28 103 Lee, Ferns,
Bakeman
12, 28
Overall
Outcome
1–8, 10–
24, 26–
28

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