Appeal No. 2006-3246
Application No. 09/956,849
From our review of the Examiner’s rejection and the language of
dependent claim 6221, we find that the Examiner has established a prima
facie of obviousness of “the processor is further configured to obtain a
signature characterizing at least one of the one or more steps during use, and
wherein the signature comprises at least one singularity representative of an
end of the at least one of the one or more steps” as recited in dependent
claim 6221. Here, we do not find Appellants' argument persuasive that the
measurement and the data processing are performed between specific
processing steps within the lithographic track. We find no limitation to
detail the processes or whether the steps of the lithographic track are all
chemical processes or whether one step may be deemed a data processing
step. Here, we agree with the Examiner that the data processing falls within
the lithographic process and the data processing is used to determine aspects
of the quality of the specimen. An “end” of a portion of the processing is
determined based on an analysis of the image which we find to be a
signature as recited in the language of the claim. Therefore, Appellants'
argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of claim 6221.
With respect to dependent claims 6223-6229, Appellants argue that
Moore does not teach or suggest that the stage of the spectroscopic
ellipsometer moves the specimen between process chambers and the
spectroscopic ellipsometer is configured to generate at least one output
signal as the stage is moving the specimen between chambers. (Brief, pp.
15-16). We agree with Appellants and find that the Examiner has not
identified a specific teaching to teach or suggest the express limitations of
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013