Ex Parte Wack et al - Page 7

                 Appeal No. 2006-3246                                                                                     
                 Application No. 09/956,849                                                                               

                 we find that Appellants have not set forth an express definition of                                      
                 “spectroscopic ellipsometer” in the specification or in the prosecution                                  
                 history.  Appellants reply that the specification at a number of locations                               
                 defines the term “spectroscopic ellipsometer.”  We cannot agree with                                     
                 Appellants.  We find that the portions of the specification identified by                                
                 Appellants merely set forth specific examples and possible facets of                                     
                 interpretations amongst the voluminous combinations of elements and                                      
                 subsystems that “may” or “can” be present in the combination of elements to                              
                 make an in-process measurement of quality control parameter(s) of a                                      
                 semiconductor being manufactured in the lithographic process during the                                  
                 dead time between sub-steps of the manufacturing.                                                        
                      We find that Appellants’ specification does not expressly define the term                           
                 “spectroscopic ellipsometer” in the specification at the recited locations.  We                          
                 find that those sections of the specification set forth some facets that a                               
                 spectroscopic ellipsometer could have, and not that they are required to have                            
                 those specific facets.  Therefore, we disagree with Appellants’ argument that                            
                 the ellipsometer of Moore is used for discrete measurements in the optical                               
                 spectrum and is not a spectroscopic ellipsometer.                                                        
                         Furthermore, Appellants have not identified any other language in                                
                 independent claim 6192 that would require a narrower interpretation than the                             
                 Examiner has made.  Hence, we do not find that the Examiner has applied an                               
                 unreasonable interpretation of independent claim 6192 when applying the                                  
                 prior art against the claim.   Here, we find an issue of greater breadth than                            
                 Appellants may have intended/desired rather than an issue of unreasonable                                
                 claim interpretation.                                                                                    

                                                            7                                                             

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013