Appeal 2007-1269
Application 10/636,468
mid-process measurement. (Answer 8.) In particular, we agree with the
Examiner that the removal of the wafers after a polishing process may
reasonably be considered the end of the process. (Answer 8.) Therefore,
under a reasonable interpretation the first polishing time period of Liu meets
the "total processing time" limitation of claim 1.
Moreover, Pasadyn discloses collecting both pre-process and post-
process metrology data and then performing comparisons between the pre-
process and the post-process data. (FF 3.) A "comparison" is an "estimation
of similarities and differences." Webster's New World Dictionary Third
College Edition 283 (1994). By teaching a comparison, Pasadyn teaches an
estimation of similarities and differences. Therefore, the "subtracting post-
process measurement data from pre-process measurement data" limitation of
claim 1 (i.e., a difference) is met by the comparison between the pre-process
and post-process data taught by Pasadyn.
In addition, the recited claim limitations of (1) "recording a total
processing time" and (2) "dividing the result [i.e., the difference between the
pre-process and post-process measurement data] by the total processing
time" to calculate a process rate would have required no more than ordinary
skill and common sense, and each limitation was within the level of ordinary
skill in the art as demonstrated by the teachings of Liu. Therefore, the
obviousness of claim 1 may be shown by Pasadyn alone. The process rate
calculation teachings of Liu are merely cumulative to the express as well as
the implied teachings already found in Pasadyn.
In their pre-KSR brief, Appellants argue that there must be a clear and
particular showing of a motivation to combine and that there is no
motivation to combine Pasadyn and Liu because they address different
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013