Appeal No. 2006-3246
Application No. 09/956,849
dependent claim 6223. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of
dependent claim 6223 and dependent claims 6224-6229.
With respect to dependent claim 6233, we will address this claim
separately from the remainder of Appellants’ grouping (with dependent
claims 6234 and 6235) since Appellants have specifically argued the
limitations therein. Appellants argue that Yoshioka and Moore do not teach
or suggest a processor configured to alter a parameter of the spectroscopic
ellipsometer. (Brief, p. 16). We agree with Appellants, and we find that the
portions of Moore and Yoshioka identified by the Examiner do not support
the Examiner’s position and further do to teach or suggest altering a
parameter of the spectroscopic ellipsometer rather than a parameter of the
lithographic processes. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claim
6233.
With respect to dependent claim 6234 and 6235, we differentiate these
claims from 6233 since these claims do not specifically limit the parameter
to be associated with altering a parameter of the spectroscopic ellipsometer.
Rather, the instruments coupled to the spectroscopic ellipsometer may be
part of the lithographic processes which is how the Examiner applied the art
in the statement of the rejection. We find no argument to this specific
language in Appellants’ claims. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not
persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of claims 6234 and 6235.
With respect to dependent claim 6236, Appellants argue that Yoshioka
and Moore do not teach or suggest a processor configured to generate a
database that includes at least a property of a specimen. (Brief, p. 17).
Appellants argue that the data of Moore does not inherently have to be part
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013