Appeal No. 2006-3246
Application No. 09/956,849
of a database that includes at least one property of a specimen. (Reply Brief,
p. 2-3). While we agree with Appellants that the data used to adjust the
processes in Moore need not be part of a database, we find that it would
have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention that
the data would have been most useful in some organized fashion, such as a
database. We find no limitations as to the structure or organization of the
data in the database with which to distinguish the database or data.
Additionally, we find that the set data of Yoshioka would have been in some
organized database so as to optimize the use thereof as the Examiner
maintains at pages 13, 14, and 21 of the Answer. Therefore, Appellants'
argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of claims 6236
and dependent claims 6237-6240 grouped therewith.
With respect to dependent claims 6241 and 6242, Appellants argue that
that Yoshioka and Moore do not teach or suggest a stand alone system
coupled to the system which is configured to be calibrated with a standard
and to calibrate the system. (Brief, p. 18). The Examiner maintains that the
set data and the product wafer W or dummy wafer DW and corrections
thereto for changes in variable parameters would have been a calibration.
(Answer, pp. 21-22). We agree with the Examiner and find that the
language of dependent claim 6241 does not further identify how the
calibration is performed. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive,
and we will sustain the rejection of claim 6241 and claim 6242 which is
grouped therewith.
With respect to dependent claim 6197, we find that Appellants rely on
the arguments made with respect to independent claim 6192 and address the
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013