Appeal 2007-1269
Application 10/636,468
signaling detection of a performance drift when a limit level is exceeded.
(Answer 10.) It would have been common sense and within the level of
ordinary skill in the art to compare the process rate trend to the limit level
and signal a performance drift when the limit level is exceeded. Therefore,
we conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 2 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
With respect to claim 9, we agree with the Examiner that Pasadyn
teaches adjusting a process recipe in real time and therefore renders obvious
the claimed limitation of adjusting a process recipe based on the pre-process
measurement data and a process rate. (Answer 10; see also FF 3-4.)
Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
However, with respect to claim 6, we agree with Appellants that
neither Pasadyn nor Liu teach or suggest the limitation of excluding a
contribution of the critical dimension of a feature as a cause of the process
drift if the pre-etch critical dimension information is within a pre-defined
critical dimension specification, as claimed. In addition, there is no
evidence that this limitation is a predictable variation of the prior art. Nor is
there evidence that this limitation would be common sense or a creative step
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because the differences between the prior art and
claim 6 are sufficient to render claim 6 nonobvious to a person skilled in the
art at the time the invention was made.
16
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013