Appeal No. 2001-0864
Application No. 08/841,214
beam. Appellants argue that Bou-Ghannam does not teach or fairly suggest the use of
the rate of change of intensity to detect defects and would not teach or fairly suggest
the use of the rate of change of intensity to detect defects in combination with Womack
and Boehnlein.
With respect to the intensity of the reflected beam, the examiner cites the
teachings of Boehnlein concerning identifying defects by taking the derivative of a pixel
intensity image and applying a threshold to identify defects. (See answer at pages 7-8.)
The examiner maintains that the pixel value in Boehnlein corresponds to the intensity
values and cites to column 6, lines 1-15. (See answer at page 8.) We disagree with
the examiner. Appellants argue that Boehnlein teaches the use of interferometry to
produce a phase map of the surface being inspected and the use of derivatives of the
phase map and thresholds to the greatest change in contour. (See brief at page 7.)
We agree with appellants and find that the pixel data is in the discussion of the prior art
systems and that Boehnlein teaches the use of data from phase shifted moire image
information rather than the intensity of the reflected light. (Boehnlein at columns 9 and
10.) These moire images are used to detect defects on the panel. Appellants argue
that even if combined, none of the references teach (or fairly suggest) “a detector for
converting an intensity of the reflected beam from the planar surface into an analog
signal” and “means for calculating a rate of change in the intensity of the reflected beam
from the pixel data.” (See brief at page 7.) We agree with appellants as discussed
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007