Oksen Toros. Baris et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 27, 2019

14809774 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2019)

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.
14/809,774 07/27/2015 Oksen Toros Baris 5222-30800/P4473 2123
61507 7590 12/27/2019
Entropy Matters LLC
P.O. Box 2250
NEW YORK, NY 10021
EXAMINER
BRYANT, REBECCA CAROLE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2877
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/27/2019 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 OKSEN TOROS BARIS and RAGHAV BABULNATH
____________

Appeal 2019-000094
Application 14/809,774
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
MERRELL C. CASHION JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–20, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

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
Corp. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-000094
Application 14/809,774

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention generally relates to systems and methods for inspecting
a wafer after performing multiple process steps on the wafer to determine
which of the process steps corresponds to the defects detected by the
inspection. Spec. 1. The Specification discloses that prior art techniques for
detecting defects in a wafer monitor each process step for excursions and
performance using a single inspection step, covering only one-to-one
correlations between process and inspection. Id. at 2. That is, each
inspection step is correlated to its one respective process step, which makes
the wafer processing time consuming and inefficient. Id. at 2–3; see
Application Figure 7. According to the Specification, such an approach can
generate different results in the different inspection/review processes for
each process step. Id. at 2. Current methodologies rely on these simple
correlations in which any result from an inspection tool can be directly used
for understanding the process issues from a process tool. Id. The invention
seeks to provide a technique for detecting defects in a wafer that are less
time-intensive and more efficient than the prior art’s technique. Id. at 3.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter claimed and is reproduced below
(formatting added):
1. A system configured to detect defects on a wafer,
comprising:

an optical subsystem comprising at least a light source
and a detector, wherein the optical subsystem is configured to
direct light generated by the light source to the wafer and to
detect light from the wafer with the detector during an
inspection process perforn1ed on the wafer to thereby generate
output responsive to the light from the wafer, wherein the
inspection process is performed after at least first and second
Appeal 2019-000094
Application 14/809,774

3
process steps have been performed on the wafer, wherein
inspection of the wafer is not performed between the first and
second process steps, wherein first patterned features in a first
portion of a design for the wafer are formed on the wafer in the
first process step, wherein second patterned features in a second
portion of the design for the wafer are formed on the wafer in
the second process step, wherein the first and second portions
of the design are mutually exclusive in space on the wafer, and
wherein the first and second patterned features have non-
overlapping positions in the x and y directions; and

one or more computer subsystems configured for:

receiving the output generated by the detector
responsive to the light detected by the detector;

detecting defects on the wafer based on the output;

determining positions of the defects with respect to
the first and second patterned features in the first and
second portions of the design based on the non-
overlapping positions of the first and second patterned
features in the x and y directions;

determining the portion of the design that the
defects are positioned on or in using information about
which of the first and second patterned features are
included in which of the first and second portions of the
design thereby correlating the defects to the first and
second portions of the design that correspond to the first
and second process steps; and

associating different portions of the defects with
the first or second process step based on the positions of
the defects with respect to the first and second patterned
features in the first and second portions of the design by
correlating the defects to the first and second process
steps based on results of said correlating the defects to
the first and second portions of the design, wherein the
Appeal 2019-000094
Application 14/809,774

4
one or more computer subsystems comprise one or more
processors executing instructions from a memory
medium.

Independent claim 20 is directed to a method of acquiring three-
dimensional ultrasound data essentially using the system of claim 1.
Independent claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer-
readable medium having a program code (software) readable and
executable by a processor to perform a method corresponding to that
of claim 1.
Appellant requests review of the following rejections maintained by
the Examiner:
I. Claims 1–20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as directed to a
judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract
idea) without significantly more.
II. Claims 1–20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Tanaka (US 2003/0054573 A1, published March 20, 2003).

ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (ineligible subject matter)2
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208,
216 (2014).

2 We limit our discussion to independent claims 1, 19, and 20.
Appeal 2019-000094
Application 14/809,774

5
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573
U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk . . . .”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical concepts (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 183 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We
view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
Appeal 2019-000094
Application 14/809,774

6
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting
to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.”
Id. (internal citation omitted) (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187
(“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or
mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving
of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (citation omitted). “A claim
that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that
the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the
[abstract idea].’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
“[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
35 U.S.C. § 101. USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (the “Guidance”), updated in
October 2019.3 Under the Guidance, we first look to whether the claim
recites:

3 We note that the Guidance was not available to the Examiner and
Appellant during the prosecution of the instant Application.
Appeal 2019-000094
Application 14/809,774

7
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human
activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes),
(designated as Step 2A (Prong 1) in the Guidance); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)) (designated as
Step 2A (Prong 2) in the Guidance).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to
whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that are not
“well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to
the judicial exception (designated as Step 2B in the Guidance).
Step 2A (Prong 1) and Step 2A (Prong 2) are used for the analysis
under the first step of Alice, while Step 2B informs the analysis under the
second step of Alice.

Determination of Claims’ Statutory Category
Before any consideration as to whether a claim is directed to a patent
ineligible subject matter, such as an abstract idea, we must first determine if
the claim falls under a statutory category, a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Appeal 2019-000094
Application 14/809,774

8
There is no dispute between Appellant and the Examiner that the
claims fall under a statutory category under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See generally
App. Br.; Final Act. 4.
For completeness, we note that independent claim 1 is a system claim
comprising an optical subsystem (light source, detector) and one or more
computer subsystems. We interpret claim 1 as falling under the statutory
category of “machine,” i.e., a structure that can be termed a machine under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
Independent claim 19 recites a non-transitory computer-readable
medium, which the Specification describes as “a magnetic or optical disk, or
a magnetic tape or any other suitable non-transitory computer-readable
medium known in the art.” Spec. 29. Manufactures are articles that result
from the process of manufacturing, i.e., they were produced “from raw or
prepared materials by giving to these materials new forms, qualities,
properties, or combinations, whether by hand-labor or by machinery.”
Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Apple Inc., 137 S. Ct. 429, 435 (2016) (quoting
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 308, (1980)); In re Nuijten, 500
F.3d 1346, 1356–57 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Manufactures also include “the parts
of a machine considered separately from the machine itself.” Samsung
Elecs., 137 S. Ct. at 435 (quoting 1 W. Robinson, The Law of Patents for
Useful Inventions § 183, p. 270 (1890)). Therefore, we interpret claim 19 as
falling under the statutory category of “manufacture” under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Independent claim 20 recites a method of detecting defect on a wafer
using the system of claim 1. We interpret claim 20 as falling under the
statutory category of a “process.”

Appeal 2019-000094
Application 14/809,774

9
Having established that the claim falls in a statutory category, we now
follow the Guidance to analyze claims 1, 19, and 20 to determine if they are
directed to a patent ineligible subject matter.

Determination of Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Applying the guidance set forth in the Guidance, we conclude that
claims 1–20 do recite patent-eligible subject matter.
a. Alice Step 1 (Office Revised Step 2A (Prong 1))
The Examiner finds that the claims are directed to an abstract idea of
data manipulation with no significant differentiation from a mental process.
Final Act. 10; see generally Ans.
Under Step 2A (Prong 1) of the Guidance, we must first determine
whether the claims include any limitations that fall within the subject matter
groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the Guidance.
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51–54.
As we note above, claim 1 recites a system (apparatus) comprising an
optical subsystem having a light source and a detector, and one or more
computer subsystems. Claim 1 also recites that the computer subsystem
comprises one or more processors executing instructions from a memory
medium. The computer subsystem is described in the Specification as
encompassing any device having one or more processors that executes
instructions from a memory medium. Spec. 10–11. In other words, the
computer subsystem encompasses a general purpose computer.
The computer subsystem is configured to perform a number of
method steps that merit consideration to determine whether the claim recites
any judicial exception to patent eligibility. We consider the following steps
Appeal 2019-000094
Application 14/809,774

10
in our deliberations.
a. The step of detecting defects on the wafer based on the detector
output
This step is recited at a high level of generalization. The
Specification describes that this step may involve comparing the detector’s
output to a threshold to identify (1) any output having one or more values
above the threshold as a potential defect (2) any output not having one or
more values above the threshold as not a potential defect. Spec. 18.
Comparing data is a step that can be performed in the human mind. As
such, this step is a mental step.
b. The step of determining positions of the defects with respect to
the first and second patterned features in the first and second portions
of the design
The step of determining positions of the defects is recited at a high
level of generalization. The Specification describes that this step involves
optically determining the position of defects with respect to portions of the
designs where they are located by overlaying design files from both process
steps with detected defect locations. Spec. 20–21.
Overlaying designs on a wafer with detected defects to visually
determine the location of the defects is a step that can be performed in the
human mind. As such, this step is also a mental step.
c. The step of determining the portion of the design that the
defects are positioned on . . .
This step is recited at a high level of generalization. The step recites
“correlating the defects to the first and second portions of the design that
correspond to the first and second process steps.” The Specification
describes that this step involves correlating defect review images to design
Appeal 2019-000094
Application 14/809,774

11
to correlate each sampled and reviewed defect with design. Spec. 22.
Correlating by reviewing images is a step that can be performed in the
human mind. As such, this step is also a mental step.
d. The step of associating different portions of the defects with the
first or second process step based on the positions of the defects with
respect to the first and second patterned features in the first and
second portions of the design by correlating the defects to the first and
second process steps based on results of said correlating the defects
to the first and second portions of the design.
This step is recited at a high level of generalization. The step recites
“correlating the defects to the first and second process steps based on results
of said correlating the defects to the first and second portions of the design.”
The Specification describes that this step involves correlating the defectivity
back to the different process steps by correlating the defects to different
portions of the design that correspond to the different process steps. Spec.
23.
Correlating the defects to the respective portions of the wafer is a step
that can be performed in the human mind. As such, this step is also a mental
step.
Independent claims 19 (non-transitory computer-readable medium)
and 20 (method) recite the same or similar method steps and, thus, our
analysis with respect to claim 1 is also applicable to these claims.
Accordingly, we conclude that claims 1, 19, and 20 recite an abstract
idea, i.e., a mental process, and thus recites a judicial exception for the
reasons the Examiner presents and we give above.
Appeal 2019-000094
Application 14/809,774

12
c. Alice Step 1 (Office Revised Step 2A (Prong 2))4
Having determined that the subject matter of claims 1, 19, or 20 is
directed to an abstract idea, we now consider under Step 2A (Prong 2) of the
Guidance whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial
exception into a practical application of the exception. Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 54. “A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical
application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that
imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is
more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.”
Id. When a claim recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate the
exception into a practical application, the claim is “directed to” the judicial
exception. Id. at 51.
Independent claim 1 principally recites the additional elements5 of an
optical subsystem (light source, detector) and one or more computer
subsystems.
To the extent that the Examiner regards the additional elements to not
“amount to exceptionally more since the process tools, light source and
detector are well known components in wafer manufacturing and
inspection,” we disagree. See Final Act. 10; see also Ans. 4–5. As we
explain in our analysis below, the additional elements reflect an

4 We acknowledge that some of these considerations may be properly
evaluated under Step 2 of Alice (Step 2B of Office Guidance). Solely for
purposes of maintaining consistent treatment within the Office, we evaluate
it under Step 1 of Alice (Step 2A of Office Guidance). See generally
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50.
5 We use the term “additional elements” for “claim features, limitations,
and/or steps that are recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial
exception.” See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.24.
Appeal 2019-000094
Application 14/809,774

13
improvement to a technology, and thus, the independent claims integrate the
recited mental process into a practical application when viewed as an
ordered combination.
A claim may integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application when, for example, it reflects an improvement to technology or a
technical field. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.25 (citing MPEP
§ 2106.05(a)). For instance, the Federal Circuit found claims eligible when
they were directed to a “particular configuration of inertial sensors and a
particular method of using the raw data from the sensors,” which improved
the accuracy of calculating an object’s position and orientation. Thales
Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (cited in
MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II)(vii)). Although the claims used mathematical
equations, the Federal Circuit in Thales explained that “[t]he mathematical
equations are a consequence of the arrangement of the sensors and the
unconventional choice of reference frame in order to calculate position and
orientation.” Id. The claimed system eliminated “many ‘complications’
inherent in previous solutions” for determining an object’s position and
orientation. Id. at 1348.
On the other hand, a claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a
practical application when it merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity
or generally links the judicial exception’s use to a particular technological
environment or field. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.32 (citing MPEP
§ 2106.05(h)). For example, in Flook, the claim used a mathematical
formula to calculate a numerical limit on a process variable in the catalytic
chemical conversion of hydrocarbons. Flook, 437 U.S. at 586 (cited in
MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the
Appeal 2019-000094
Application 14/809,774

14
claim was made eligible through its limitations to the petrochemical field
and oil refining. Id. at 589–91. Reflecting on this case, the Supreme Court
in Kappos commented that “Flook established that limiting an abstract idea
to one field of use or adding token post solution components did not make
the concept patentable.” Kappos, 561 U.S. at 612.
We disagree with the Examiner that the claimed invention uses “no
particular configuration.” Ans. 5. We also agree with Appellant that the
claimed invention is similar to the facts in Thales. Appeal Br. 11–12.
In Thales, the Federal Circuit found claims eligible when they were
directed to a “particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular
method of using the raw data from the sensors,” which improved the
accuracy of calculating an object’s position and orientation. Thales Visionix
Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (cited in MPEP
§ 2106.05(a)(II)(vii)). Although the claims used mathematical equations,
the Federal Circuit in Thales explained that “[t]he mathematical equations
are a consequence of the arrangement of the sensors and the unconventional
choice of reference frame in order to calculate position and orientation.” Id.
The claimed system eliminated “many ‘complications’ inherent in previous
solutions” for determining an object’s position and orientation. Id. at 1348.
Specifically, the invention involves an optical subsystem configured
to perform an inspection process after at least first and second process steps
have been performed on the wafer and not, between the first and second
process steps. The Specification describes that this configuration enables
reduction of inspection steps for consecutive fabrication process steps and,
in turn, reduces the amount of time needed for inspection processes in multi-
steps wafer fabrication processes. Spec. 11, 26 and Application Figure 4.
Appeal 2019-000094
Application 14/809,774

15
The Specification also describes that the invention as monitoring to detect
defects that, when correlated against wafer designs, associates the defects
with the first or second process step based on the positions of the detected
defects with respect to the first and second patterned features in the first and
second portions of the design. Spec. 13–14, 26. That is, the invention
improves the optical subsystem by configuring it so it can operate without
inspecting between intervening wafer processing steps and so it can use a
single inspection step to identify and associate defects that correspond to
each of the wafer processing steps performed. Spec. 14 (“associate different
defects with different process steps”). Appellant, thus, is concerned with
solving the technical problem of identifying the defects caused by the
various wafer processing steps to “mitigate the risk of the process tool going
down thereby preventing extreme costs.” Id. at 26. Appellant’s described
solution overcomes the limitations of existing approaches. Id. at 1–3.
Appellant’s described technical solution is required by the
independent claims. For instance, the independent claims recite detecting
defects on the wafer based on the output from the optical subsystem and
determining positions of the defects with respect to the first and second
patterned features in the first and second portions of the design based on the
non-overlapping positions of the first and second patterned features in the x
and y directions. The independent claims also recite determining the portion
of the design that the defects are located by correlating the defects to the first
and second portions of the design corresponding to the first and second
process steps and associating different portions of the defects with the first
or second process step by correlating the defects to the first and second
process steps based on results of the correlation. These claim limitations
Appeal 2019-000094
Application 14/809,774

16
address the shortcomings of the prior art techniques. Spec. 26.
The independent claims recite a practical application because the
claimed system, non-transitory computer-readable medium, and method
improve the operation of the optical subsystem and the wafer processing
tool. Spec. 22–23. Here, as in Thales, the abstract idea of a mental process
“does not doom the claims to abstraction.” Thales, 850 F.3d at 1349.
Instead, the abstract idea recited in the independent claims is “a consequence
of the arrangement of” the system’s optical subsystem and how it is used to
determine defects on a wafer. See id.
For all these reasons, the claimed invention uses the recited mental
process to improve a system, a non-transitory computer-readable medium
and a method to detect defects on a wafer.
Because we find the claims are not directed to patent ineligible subject
matter, we need not proceed to determine whether the claims provide an
inventive concept. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (discussing “Step 2B:
If the Claim Is Directed to a Judicial Exception, Evaluate Whether the Claim
Provides an Inventive Concept”).
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the reasons given above and presented by the
Appellant.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 16
The Examiner finds that Tanaka discloses a system that differs from
claim 1 in that Tanaka does not disclose a light source and detector as

6 We limit our discussion to claim 1. Our determination with respect to
claim 1 applies to all rejected claims.
Appeal 2019-000094
Application 14/809,774

17
components in the optical subsystem to perform the inspection process.
Final Act. 13. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to have a light source and detector for wafer
inspection processing since these are well understood in the art that provide
a reliable, well known manner of inspecting wafers for defects. Id. at 13–14.
The Examiner further determines that the limitations "wherein the first
patterned features in a first portion . . . wherein second patterned features . . .
are formed on the wafer in the second process step" are not limiting on the
system to detect defects. Id. at 14. In addition, the Examiner determined
that the computer sub-system of Tanaka’s system performs or can perform
the claimed data analysis steps. Id. at 11–12, 14.
Appellant argues that Tanaka does not disclose performing different
process steps on different portions of the wafer that do not overlap in the x
and y directions. App. Br. 43. According to Appellant, Tanaka does not
disclose forming patterned features in different sections of the wafer using
different processes and, thus, the first and second patterned features formed
by Tanaka’s lithographic process steps would be formed in all sections of
the wafer that are being inspected. Id. Instead, Appellant contends that
Tanaka’s first and second patterned features are formed in the same process
because Tanaka does not disclose otherwise. Id. at 44. Appellant also
contends that Tanaka’s patterned features would overlap in the x and y
directions because, “if an etch process step is performed on an entire wafer,
all features formed in that etch process step are either the first patterned
features or the second patterned features as presently claimed but not the
first and second patterned features as presently claimed. Id. at 46.
Appellant refers to Exhibit A, reproduced below and modified to
Appeal 2019-000094
Application 14/809,774

18
individually label the figures within the exhibit.

The Figures in Exhibit A show the steps of a basic lithography process. Id.
at 46.
Referring to Exhibit A, Appellant argues that the post-etch step
(Figure C) and post-etch or post-strip step (Figure D) transfer the patterned
features from the resist to the patterned features of the underlying dielectric
material and, thus, the patterned features overlap in the x and y directions.
Id. at 46–47. Appellant also asserts that no pattern is transferred to the
exposed wafer area (trench). Id. at 49.
Appellant’s arguments point to reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination of obviousness.
The Examiner asserts that “[t]he trenches and lines are certainly
Appeal 2019-000094
Application 14/809,774

19
distinguishable by coordinates in the x and y directions, despite the process
that creates them relying upon the same underlying materials.” Ans. 7.
However, as Appellant argues, the Examiner’s assertion does not address the
fact that there are no patterned features transferred or formed on the wafer
surface at the bottom of the trench after performing the post etch and the
post etch/post-strip steps. App. Br. 46–49. Thus, the Examiner has not
explained adequately how Tanaka teaches forming first and second patterned
features having non-overlapping positions in the x and y directions. Nor
does the Examiner direct us to any portion of Tanaka that teaches or
suggests forming first and second patterned features having non-overlapping
positions in the x and y directions.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons given above and presented by the
Appellant.
CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 101 Ineligible subject
matter
1–20
1–20 103 Tanaka 1–20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED