Appeal 2006-3235
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,696
1 therefore satisfies the preambular language, “A . . . use of liquid crystal for
2 detecting hot spot on die or wafer with a hot spot detection method.” As
3 explained above, none of the claim language requires that the hot spot
4 detection method be performed on a failed or defective device or precludes
5 the location of the detected hot spot from being known prior to performance
6 of the hot spot detection method. The body of the claim is satisfied because
7 Aszodi’s method employs K24, one of the claimed liquid crystal materials,
8 in a mixture also containing M24 and the claim does not preclude a mixture
9 of liquid crystal materials. Based on the same reasoning, the claim is also
10 anticipated by the process of obtaining each of the eleven microphotographs
11 used to create the temperature map depicted in Figure 6(a).
12 In view of the above, it is not necessary for us to consider the
13 Examiner’s alternative reliance on region T6 in the temperature map
14 depicted in Figure 6(b).
15 In addition to the arguments already addressed above, Appellant
16 attempts to distinguish Claim 11 from Aszodi for reasons that have no basis
17 whatsoever in the claim language. One such reason is that “Aszodi’s
18 thermal mapping method is done with respect to a known ‘temperature
19 range.’ (Refer to Fig. 6(a), page 1131, Col. 1, paragraph 2)[.] As against
20 this, in claim 11, there is no such ‘temperature range.’” Brief 39, para. 4.
21 Nothing in the claim precludes the detection of hot spots with respect to a
22 known “temperature range.”
23 Another argument having no basis in the claim language is the
24 assertion that the phase transition sharpness of K24, recited in the claim, is
25 almost 200 times greater than the phase transition sharpness of Aszodi’s the
26 M24/K24 mixture. Br. 39, para. 7. Specifically, Appellant characterizes
44
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013