Ex Parte Butler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 2014

12244326 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 12/244,326 10/02/2008 Hans BUTLER 1857.6240001 1776 26111 7590 09/24/2014 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. 1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20005 EXAMINER NGUYEN, HUNG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2882 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/24/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte HANS BUTLER, MARC WILHELMUS MARIA VAN DER WIJST, and CORNELIUS ADRIANUS LAMBERTUS DE HOON ________________ Appeal 2012-010964 Application 12/244,326 Technology Center 2800 ________________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–15 and 23–25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellants claim a lithographic apparatus, a control system and a device manufacturing method. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A control system comprising: a measurement system configured to measure a position or position related quantity of an object; Appeal 2012-010964 Application 12/244,326 2 a controller configured to provide a control signal based on the measured position or position related quantity; an actuator configured to actuate the object based on the control signal; and a partial order filter unit configured to filter the measured position or position related quantity. The Reference Yuan US 2007/0097340 A1 May 3, 2007 The Rejection Claims 1–15 and 23–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Yuan. OPINION We reverse the rejection. We need to address only the independent claims, i.e., claims 1, 10, 23, and 25. Each of those claims requires a partial order filter unit. “Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be disclosed, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior art reference.” Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1255-56 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Yuan discloses a photolithography system comprising a filter (538’) which can be a notch filter or another type of filter such as a low pass filter, high pass filter or band pass filter (¶¶ 45, 72). The Examiner argues, in reliance upon a Wikipedia definition of a mathematical filter as “a special subset of a partially ordered set”,1 that “in 1 WIKIPEDIA, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_(mathematics) (p. 1). Appeal 2012-010964 Application 12/244,326 3 broadest sense, the filter (538’) of Yuan et al can be considered as ‘a partial order filter’ as broadly claimed” (Ans. 9). That argument is not well taken because the Examiner has not established that those of ordinary skill in the photolithography art to which Yuan pertains would have considered a partial order filter to be defined by the definition of a mathematical filter. The Examiner argues that Yuan’s filter is a partial order filter because, like the Appellants’ filter (Spec. 59), it can be a low pass filter (¶ 72) (Ans. 9). This assertion That argument is not persuasive because the Examiner has not established that every low pass filter is a partial order filter. The Appellants’ Specification does not indicate that every low pass filter is a partial order filter but, rather, indicates that a partial order filter differs from a first order filter in that a first order filter provides a -90º phase shift whereas a partial order filter provides a lesser phase shift (-60º for a 2/3 order filter and -45º for a half order filter) (Spec. ¶¶ 59–60). Thus, the Examiner has not established that Yuan discloses, either expressly or inherently, each of the Appellants’ claim limitations. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection. DECISION/ORDER The rejection of claims 1–15 and 23–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Yuan is reversed. Appeal 2012-010964 Application 12/244,326 4 It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED cam