Appeal No. 2006-3246
Application No. 09/956,849
teachings of Jann separately from the combined teachings of Yoshioka and
Moore since Jann does not specifically relate to a spectroscopic ellipsometer.
(Brief, p. 19). We do not find a specific argument by Appellants which
shows an error in the Examiner’s prima facie of obviousness set forth at
pages 5-6 of the Answer. Furthermore, Appellants have not identified why
it would not have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the
invention to have included a roughness measurement in the combination.
Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain the
rejection of claim 6197.
With respect to dependent claim 6198, for the same reasons as discussed
above with respect to dependent claim 6197, we will sustain the rejection of
dependent claim 6198.
With respect to dependent claim 6200, the Examiner maintains that
Kuriyama teaches the motivation and ability to measure multiple properties
of a specimen substantially simultaneously. (Answer, p. 7). Appellants rely
on the arguments made with respect to independent claim 6192 and that
Kuriyama does not teach that the two optical systems are not configured as a
spectroscopic ellipsometer. We do not find these arguments persuasive
since they do not address the base motivation to perform more than one
determination at a time. Here, we note that dependent claim 6200 does not
require multiple measurement systems performing measurements
simultaneously as the Examiner applies Kuriyama, but only that the system
“determines at least two properties” substantially at the same time. We find
that if there are two measurements at the same time there would have been
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013