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