Appeal No. 2005-2310
Application 10/287,168
The appellant argues that Badger compares the mask or
printed wafer image to a library of images, not to a specific
master image (reply brief, page 8). The appellant’s claim 1
merely requires comparison to a master image; it does not prevent
the master image from being in a library of acceptable images.
Hence, we are not convinced of reversible error in the
rejection of claim 1 over Badger. Consequently, we affirm the
rejection of that claim and claims 2, 3 and 5 that stand or fall
therewith.
Rejection of claim 1 over Omae
Omae discloses a method and apparatus for inspecting a
pattern formed on an inspection object such as a printed wired
board by repairing a defect, if one exists, in an image of a
master substrate to obtain a proper master image, and comparing
that image to an image of the inspection object (col. 1, lines 6-
8; col. 9, lines 19-22 and 44-50).
The appellant argues that Omae’s inspection of a reference
substrate and use of the same defect inspection method for
subsequent substrate inspections is conventional die to die
comparison (brief, page 11; reply brief, page 9).3 As pointed
3 Omae’s method is not conventional die to die inspection
because any defect in the master image is repaired before that
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007