Ex Parte AKHSSAY

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 22, 2017

14062747 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/062,747 10/24/2013 M'hamed AKHSSAY 081468-0427659 6736
909 7590
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP
PO Box 10500
McLean, VA 22102
EXAMINER
PARIHAR, SUCHIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2851
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/27/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docket_ip@pillsburylaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte M’HAMED AKHSSAY
Appeal 2017-004748
Application 14/062,747
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, WESLEY B. DERRICK,
and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to finally reject claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The real party in interest is identified as ASML Netherlands B.V., having a
business address of De Run 6501, Veldhoven, Netherlands NL-5504 DR.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-004748
Application 14/062,747
Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced
below:
1. A method for improving a lithographic process for
imaging a design layout onto a substrate using a lithographic
projection apparatus comprising a patterning device, wherein
the patterning device deforms from a first state to a second
state, the method comprising:
determining a deformation of the patterning device from
the first state to the second state, wherein the patterning device
comprises a lithographic mask;
determining a compensatory design layout from the
design layout and the deformation of the patterning device;
wherein the compensatory design layout is such that
when the compensatory design layout is generated on the
patterning device in the first state, the deformation of the
patterning device deforms the compensatory design layout to
the design layout.
Appellant requests review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Van Der Werf (US
2003/0003383 Al, published January 2, 2003). App. Br. 3; Final Act. 2.
OPINION
After review of the respective positions provided by the Appellant and
the Examiner, we REVERSE the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1—
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for the reasons presented by Appellant in the
Appeal and Reply Briefs. We add the following for emphasis.
Independent claim 1 is directed to a method for improving a
lithographic process for imaging a design layout onto a substrate comprising
2
Appeal 2017-004748
Application 14/062,747
a step of determining a compensatory design layout from the design layout
and the deformation of the patterning device wherein the compensatory
design layout is such that when the compensatory design layout is generated
on the patterning device in the first state, the deformation of the patterning
device deforms the compensatory design layout to the design layout.2
We refer to the Examiner’s Final Action for a complete statement of
the rejection. Final Act. 3^4. The Examiner finds Van Der Werf describes
determining a compensatory design involving shifting or tilting the design in
order to change the design layout on a patterning device by providing
deliberate distortions in order to return the deformed layout back to the
originally intended layout. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3^4; Van Der Werf ^Hf 40—65.
Appellant argues that Van Der Werf s disclosure of changing the
position and orientation of the mask is different from determining a design
layout having a property whereby the deformation of the patterning device
deforms the compensatory design layout to the design layout. App. Br. 5;
Van Der Werf H 40-67.
We agree with Appellant. As asserted by Appellant, the cited
passages in Van Der Werf describe reorienting the mask in space to
compensate for distortion in other parts of the system, leaving the same
design layout in place before and after re-orientation. App. Br. 5. That is,
Appellant argues the cited portion of Van Der Werf generally describes
moving the mask as a whole, without changing the design layout represented
on the mask, to compensate for distortions elsewhere (e.g., the projection
lens) in the system. Id. Although Van Der Werf generally describes the use
of a test mask to calibrate distortions from the mask table (see 1 53), we find
2 We limit our discussion to independent claim 1.
3
Appeal 2017-004748
Application 14/062,747
no description in paragraphs 40-65 of Van Der Werf of calibrating the
design layout using the test mask to determine a compensatory design layout
from the design layout and the deformation of the patterning device. The
Examiner does not direct us to the specific portions of Van Der Werf that
support the assertion that the reference describes the claimed step of
determining a compensatory design layout as required by the subject matter
of independent claim 1. Nor does the Examiner provide an adequate
explanation of how the noted cited portions of the reference support this
assertion.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s prior art rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for the reasons presented by Appellant and given above.
ORDER
The Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is reversed.
REVERSED
4