Appeal 2006-2959
Application 10/066,277
defects is the chip with its top removed. We also note that the outer area of
the DUT that is immediately exposed to the light can reasonably be
construed as the surface of the DUT as it rests on the stage of the
microscope. Therefore, by disclosing a computer for examining the image
of a DUT to find defects anywhere in the chip including the surface of the
DUT, Esrig teaches the claimed limitation of a computer that automatically
examines the image of a sample to identify the surface features of the sample
and to determine the characteristics of the sample. After considering the
entire record before us, we find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting
claims 1 through 4, 6 through 8, 23 through 26 and 28 as being anticipated
by Esrig. For these same reasons, we also find that the Examiner did not err
in rejecting claims 9 through 16, 18 through 22, 29 through 36, 38 through
42 as being unpatentable over Esrig in various combinations with Wallack,
Mitsuyama, Oosawa and Cho.
Further, we find Esrig to be analogous art with respect to Appellants’
invention, as recited in claims 9, 14, 29 and 34. We find that both Esrig and
the subject matter of the cited claims are concerned with a computer-
implemented method for inspecting images of a sample to identify possible
defects. Therefore, we conclude that both Esrig and the claimed invention
are within the same field of endeavor. Additionally, we find that the
Examiner properly combined Esrig with Wallack and Mitsuyama to reject
dependent claims 9, 14, 29 and 34. As set forth in the findings of fact
section above, the Examiner obtained the motivations from the references
themselves to justify the proposed combinations. Particularly, Wallack
indicates that the image segmentation mechanism offers the benefits of
reduced storage space and faster processing of image data. Similarly,
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013