Ex Parte Dierichs

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2017

11785907 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 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.
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