Appeal No. 2006-3246
Application No. 09/956,849
With the above claim interpretation, we find that the Examiner has set
forth sufficient teachings, analysis, and a convincing line of reasoning for
the combination of the teachings that it would have been obvious to one
skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the teachings
as set forth by the Examiner in the Answer.
Appellants argue that Moore discloses an ellipsometer coupled to a
cluster tool, but does not teach or suggest a spectroscopic ellipsometer
coupled to a cluster tool. Appellants further argue that as known to one of
ordinary skill in the art that an ellipsometer is not equivalent to a
spectroscopic ellipsometer. (Brief, p. 7). We disagree with Appellants as
discussed above with respect to the Examiner’s claim interpretation. We do
not find that Appellants have provided any evidence beyond the cited
portions of the specification and the definition from the Internet which has
no date associated with it. (Brief, pp. 8-9). Therefore, we do not find that
Appellants have provided any evidence which we find persuasive.
Appellants argue that Moore discloses an ellipsometer that includes a
light source that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art that can operate
at one or more discrete wavelengths, not a broad spectrum of wavelengths.
(Brief, p. 9). We disagree with Appellants as discussed with respect to the
claim interpretation. We find that the fact that more that one wavelength at
which the ellipsometer can operate would have made the ellipsometer a
spectroscopic ellipsometer in a broad sense.
While Appellants would like the claim terminology to be interpreted to
require a “broad spectrum of wavelengths,” we find no additional limitation
in the language of independent claim 6192 which requires that level of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013