Appeal No. 2006-0741
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,185
Discussion
A. The rejection of claims 1-4, 8-13, 16, 17, 20 and
27-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Raymond and Moharam
The examiner applied Raymond as a primary reference disclosing the measuring of actual
diffracted illumination from a substrate with repeating structures and a theoretical prediction of
anticipated diffraction based on a mathematical algorithm. In Raymond, first the actual
diffracted light fingerprint is measured (page 1485, column 2, lines 19-21 and 26-27).
Thereafter, a diffraction model is used while varying each parameter over a certain range to
calculate the theoretical diffraction over a parameter space (page 1485, column 2, lines 29-35).
Based on the prediction data, those parameters that correspond to the actual diffraction
fingerprint are determined (page 1485, column 2, lines 36-38).
The appellant argues that the invention according to claim 1 applies broadband light as
the source of illumination for the substrate (Brief at 2). The appellant argues that according to
claim 27 the source of illumination has a range of wavelengths (Brief at 2). The appellant argues
that according to all three independent claims 1, 27 and 28, the diffracted or reflected radiation
has an intensity which is a function of wavelength and the diffracted or reflected radiation is
measured as a function of wavelength (Brief at 2-3). The appellant states that Raymond does not
teach applying a source radiation which has a range of wavelengths, or having any diffracted
radiation which has an intensity as a function of wavelength, or measuring the diffracted
radiation as a function of wavelength (Brief at 5).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007