KLA-Tencor Corp. suing Nanometrics over US '580 and '656
The patent infringement lawsuit in ND Ca alleges that Nanometrics has infringed upon claims of U.S. patent nos. 6,483,580 (the '580 patent) and 6,590,656 (the '656 patent). Both patents involve spectroscopic scatterometry technology used in film thickness measurement. That is a key element of optical critical dimension measurement technology.
US 6,483,580 ("Spectroscopic scatterometer system") issued November 19, 2002 and has been cited by 14 US patents. Of these 14, two are other patents assigned to KLA-Tencor (US 6,611,330; 6,633,831) and one (US 6,898,537) is to Nanometrics. The '580 claims no priority. It is based on application 036557, filed March 6, 1998. The first claim of the '580 recites:
A method for measuring one or more parameters of a periodic diffracting structure adjacent to an associated structure, said associated structure having a thickness and an optical index, comprising:
providing an optical index and a film thickness of the associated structure;
constructing a reference database of one or more parameters related to said diffracting structure using said optical index and film thickness of the associated structure;
directing a beam of electromagnetic radiation at a plurality of wavelengths at said periodic diffracting structure,
detecting intensity data or ellipsometric parameters of a diffraction at said plurality of wavelengths from said diffracting structure of said beam; and
comparing said detected intensity data or ellipsometric parameters to said database to determine said one or more parameters.
The other KLA patent, US 6,590,656, is based on a divisional application related to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/036,557, filed Mar. 6, 1998. The '656 has been cited by 4 US patents.
The first claim of the '656 recites:
A scatterometer for measuring one or more parameters of a periodic diffracting structure of a sample, said one or more parameters comprising shape of lines, linewidth, pitch, height and/or side wall angle of the structure, said scatterometer comprising:
a reference database;
a source which emits broadband radiation;
a polarizer that polarizes the broadband radiation to produce a sampling beam sampling the periodic diffracting structure;
a detector detecting ellipsometric parameters of a diffraction from the diffracting structure of said broadband radiation over a range of wavelengths; and
a processor comparing said detected ellipsometric parameters to said database to determine said shape of lines, linewidth, pitch, height and/or side wall angle of the structure.
**
In passing, relevant to the use by Quillen and Webster of data by Allison and Lemley, one notes that, although the '580 and the '656 patents are part of the same patent family, NEITHER one references the other, and thus their relationship would be MISSED by the approach of Allison and Lemley. This error would result in an overestimate of patent grant rate by Quillen and Webster. The continuing application leading to the '656 would be subtracted from abandonments, but there would be TWO issued patents, leading to a grant rate in excess of 100%. This is but one of many ways the approach of Quillen and Webster leads to an incorrect estimate of grant rate.
US 6,483,580 ("Spectroscopic scatterometer system") issued November 19, 2002 and has been cited by 14 US patents. Of these 14, two are other patents assigned to KLA-Tencor (US 6,611,330; 6,633,831) and one (US 6,898,537) is to Nanometrics. The '580 claims no priority. It is based on application 036557, filed March 6, 1998. The first claim of the '580 recites:
A method for measuring one or more parameters of a periodic diffracting structure adjacent to an associated structure, said associated structure having a thickness and an optical index, comprising:
providing an optical index and a film thickness of the associated structure;
constructing a reference database of one or more parameters related to said diffracting structure using said optical index and film thickness of the associated structure;
directing a beam of electromagnetic radiation at a plurality of wavelengths at said periodic diffracting structure,
detecting intensity data or ellipsometric parameters of a diffraction at said plurality of wavelengths from said diffracting structure of said beam; and
comparing said detected intensity data or ellipsometric parameters to said database to determine said one or more parameters.
The other KLA patent, US 6,590,656, is based on a divisional application related to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/036,557, filed Mar. 6, 1998. The '656 has been cited by 4 US patents.
The first claim of the '656 recites:
A scatterometer for measuring one or more parameters of a periodic diffracting structure of a sample, said one or more parameters comprising shape of lines, linewidth, pitch, height and/or side wall angle of the structure, said scatterometer comprising:
a reference database;
a source which emits broadband radiation;
a polarizer that polarizes the broadband radiation to produce a sampling beam sampling the periodic diffracting structure;
a detector detecting ellipsometric parameters of a diffraction from the diffracting structure of said broadband radiation over a range of wavelengths; and
a processor comparing said detected ellipsometric parameters to said database to determine said shape of lines, linewidth, pitch, height and/or side wall angle of the structure.
**
In passing, relevant to the use by Quillen and Webster of data by Allison and Lemley, one notes that, although the '580 and the '656 patents are part of the same patent family, NEITHER one references the other, and thus their relationship would be MISSED by the approach of Allison and Lemley. This error would result in an overestimate of patent grant rate by Quillen and Webster. The continuing application leading to the '656 would be subtracted from abandonments, but there would be TWO issued patents, leading to a grant rate in excess of 100%. This is but one of many ways the approach of Quillen and Webster leads to an incorrect estimate of grant rate.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 4:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home