Appeal No. 2006-3246
Application No. 09/956,849
specificity and to so interpret the claim language would be to import
limitations to the claim, which we cannot do.
Appellants additionally argue that Moore fails to teach or suggest
measuring ellipsometric parameters of a substrate or a layer as a function of
wavelength and that the ellipsometer of Moore includes single wavelength-
type optical components (Brief, p. 10). We do not find this argument
persuasive since we find the language of claim 6192 merely recites
“spectroscopic ellipsometer is configured to generate one or more output
signals responsive to the at least one property of the specimen during use.”
We find no language which supports Appellants argument. Therefore,
Appellants' argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of
claim 6192 and independent claims 6252, 6312, 6432, 6492, and 6548 and
dependent claims 6193-6196, 6203-6211, 6214-6215, 6217-6220, 6222,
6230-6232, and 6243-6251, which Appellants have chosen to group
therewith.
With respect to dependent claim 6199, the Examiner cites to columns 3
and 5 of Moore to teach and suggest that the system determines thickness
and adjusts the process which would have involved the processor (Answer,
pp. 6, 18, and 19). Appellants argue that Moore does not teach a processor
configured to determine defects on a specimen (Brief, p.11). We disagree
with Appellants, and we will sustain the rejection of claim 6199.
With respect to dependent claim 6201 and 6202, Appellants argue that
the cited art does not teach or suggest a spectroscopic ellipsometer which is
configured to image at least an area of a specimen so that a property of the
specimen can be determined at multiple locations substantially
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013