Ex Parte DierichsDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 201711785907 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 11/785,907 04/20/2007 Marcel Mathijs Dierichs 081468-0360914 5266 909 7590 11/02/2017 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP PO Box 10500 McLean, VA 22102 EXAMINER RIDDLE, CHRISTINA A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2882 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/02/2017 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 MARCEL MATHIJS DIERICHS1 Appeal 2015-002892 Application 11/785,907 Technology Center 2800 Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as ASML Netherlands B.V. Appeal 2015-002892 Application 11/785,907 Appellant requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—10, and 12—19. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal and is set forth below: 1. A lithographic apparatus comprising: an illumination system configured to provide a radiation beam having a field defining a maximum area through which the radiation beam passes irrespective of spatial or angular intensity distribution of the radiation beam, the illumination system including a first spatial light modulator comprising a two-dimensional array of individually controllable elements controllable to change a size of the field of the radiation beam by diverging or converging substantially all of the radiation beam, change a spatial position of the field of the radiation beam by laterally translating substantially all of the radiation beam, or both; and a second spatial light modulator arranged to apply a desired angular intensity distribution to the radiation beam; a support structure configured to support a patterning device, the patterning device serving to impart the radiation beam with a pattern in the cross-section of the radiation beam; a substrate table configured to hold a substrate; and a projection system configured to project the patterned radiation beam onto a target portion of the substrate. The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence of unpatentability: Singer Mulder US 2002/0136351 A1 US 6,737,662 B2 Sept. 26, 2002 May 18,2004 2 Appeal 2015-002892 Application 11/785,907 Kohler Tsukagoshi WO 2005/026843 A2 US 2006/0158754 A1 Mar. 24, 2005 July 20, 2006 THE REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 14, and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over by Singer in view of Tsukagoshi. 2. Claim 4 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Singer as modified by Tsukagoshi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kohler. 3. Claims 5—8, 12, 13, and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Singer as modified by Tsukagoshi as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Mulder. 4. Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Singer as modified by Tsukagoshi in view of Mulder. 5. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Singer as modified by Tsukagoshi in view of Mulder as applied to claim 17 and further in view of Kohler. ANALYSIS Appellant relies upon similar arguments presented for Rejection 1, claim 1, when arguing Rejections 2—5 (Appeal Br. 18—34). Accordingly, we focus on Rejection 1, as applied to claim 1, in resolving the issues before us in this appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii). Upon consideration of the evidence and each of the respective positions set forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of evidence 3 Appeal 2015-002892 Application 11/785,907 supports the Examiner’s findings and conclusion that the subject matter of Appellant’s claims is unpatentable over the applied art. Accordingly, we sustain each of the Examiner’s rejections on appeal for the reasons set forth in the Final Office Action and in the Answer. We add the following for emphasis. Rejection 1 Regarding claim 1, the Examiner states that Singer discloses certain claim elements as identified on pages 1—4 of the Final Office Action. The Examiner states that Singer does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the first spatial light modulator changes the size of the “field of the radiation beam by diverging or converging substantially all of the radiation beam, changes a spatial position of the field of the radiation beam by laterally translating substantially all of the radiation beam, or both,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Tsukagoshi discloses changing the size of the field of the radiation beam by diverging or converging substantially all of the radiation beam wherein the spatial light modulator 10 changes the size of the field of the radiation beam by diverging or converging all of the light incident upon the micro mirrors. Final Act. 4, Tsukagoshi, Figs. 1 (A) and (B), 134. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to have included diverging or converging substantially all of the radiation beam of Singer as taught by Tsukagoshi to change the size of the field of the radiation beam using the first spatial light modulator in the lithographic apparatus as taught by Singer since, as shown by Tsukagoshi, including 4 Appeal 2015-002892 Application 11/785,907 diverging or converging substantially all of the radiation beam, which also allows the focal position of the spatial light modulator to be controlled (para. 7) to enable adjustment of a light intensity distribution as taught by Tsukagoshi. Final Act. 4—5. In the Appeal Brief, Appellant presents several lines of argument (which are repeated in the Reply Brief with additional emphasis which is not repeated hereafter). First, Appellant argues that the applied art does not indicate that the size of the field is changed, especially because field size is not discussed in the applied art. Appeal Br. 7—10. However, we are not convinced by such argument for the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s response to argument made on pages 3—5 of the Answer. Appellant has not convincingly demonstrated how the divergence or convergence conducted according to the applied art is done in a manner different from the manner conducted by Appellant’s illumination system such that a different result would occur. Absent such supporting evidence, the Appellant’s assertion amounts to a mere conclusory statement that is entitled to little, if any, probative weight. See, e.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Second, Appellant argues that there is no proper reasoned technical explanation of the combination of Singer and Tsukagoshi for the reasons discussed on pages 10—14 of the Appeal Brief. However, we are unpersuaded by such argument for the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s response made on pages 5—7, and emphasize the following. Appellant submits that the assignments associated with raster elements 5 and 9 would be lost if the beams were convertd to a focus according to Tsukagoshi. Appeal Br. 10—11. In response, the Examiner states that one would still 5 Appeal 2015-002892 Application 11/785,907 have the ability to alter the assignment of the raster elements 5 on the field raster element plate 7 as required to obtain the intensity distribution as desired by Singer. Ans. 5—6. Appellant argues that the Examiner does not explain what the proposed modification would like to achieve this. Appeal Br. 12—14. However, the Examiner explains (on page 5 of the Answer) that Singer discloses that the assignments of the raster elements are changeable to provide adjustment of the illumination. Singer, last line of the Abstract, H 26, 74. Ans. 5. The Examiner further explains that according to the proposed modification, one skilled in the art would have the ability to alter the assignment of the raster elements 5 on the field raster element plate 7 as required to obtain the intensity distribution as desired (Singer 190), and that such modification further describes how the structure of the spatial light modulators of Singer can be controlled as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in photolithography. Ans. 6. We agree and add that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). We thus concur with the Examiner’s stated position in the record. Third, Appellant argues that there is no proper reason to modify Singer as proposed in the rejection for the reasons discussed on pages 14—18 of the Appeal Brief. However, we are in agreement with the Examiner’s stated position made on pages 7—10 of the Answer, and emphasize the following. Appellant contends that the Examiner’s reason for the modification of Singer is that “diverging or converging substantially all of the radiation beam also allows the focal position of the spatial light modulator to be controlled (para. [0007]) to enable adjustment of a light 6 Appeal 2015-002892 Application 11/785,907 intensity distribution.” Appeal Br. 14—15; see also Final Act. 4-5. Appellant argues that the Examiner does not show support that the mirrors of Singer provide a particular focus, and thus, the reason for the modification is not proper. Appeal Br. 15. In response, on page 8 of the Answer, the Examiner explains that the mirror facets of the spatial modulator taught by Singer necessarily have a focus because Singer describes shifting the positon of the mirror facets of the second spatial modulator in the traveling direction of the light. Singer para. 36. We agree with the Examiner and are thus unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. In view of the above, we affirm Rejection 1. Rejections 2—5 As indicated, supra, Appellant relies upon similar arguments presented for Rejection 1, claim 1, in arguing Rejections 2—5 (Appeal Br. 18—34). We thus affirm Rejections 2—5 for the reasons that we affirm Rejection 1. DECISION Each rejection is affirmed. 7 Appeal 2015-002892 Application 11/785,907 TIME PERIOD No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). ORDER AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation