Ex Parte Dijksman et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 19, 2018

13189145 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/189,145 07/22/2011
909 7590 09/21/2018
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP
PO Box 10500
McLean, VA 22102
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Johan Frederik Dijksman
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
081468-0395414 9630
EXAMINER
VETERE, ROBERT A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1712
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2018 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 JOHAN FREDERIK DIJKSMAN, ANKE PIERIK, SANDER
FREDERIK WUISTER, and ROELOF KOOLE
Appeal 2016-006505
Application 13/189, 145
Technology Center 1700
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, BRIAND. RANGE, and SHELDON M.
McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification filed
July 22, 2011 ("Spec."); Final Office Action dated April 29, 2015 ("Final");
Appeal Brief filed November 6, 2015 ("Appeal Br."); Examiner's Answer dated
April 11, 2016 ("Ans."); and Reply Brief filed June 13, 2016 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal 2016-006505
Application 13/189,145
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § I34(a) from the Examiner's decision
finally rejecting claims 1-13 and 22-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Independent claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal, and is
reproduced below.
1. A method of aligning a template and a substrate for imprint
lithography using a mask pattern of the template and a luminescent
marker pattern of the substrate, the method comprising:
providing radiation through an aperture of the mask pattern
toward the luminescent marker pattern, the radiation incident to the
mask pattern at a non-orthogonal angle to the mask pattern; and
aligning the mask pattern and the luminescent marker pattern
using a radiation intensity measurement of radiation emitted by the
luminescent marker pattern and having passed the aperture of the
mask pattern, wherein at least part of the radiation emitted by the
luminescent marker pattern is blocked by the mask pattern.
Appeal Br. 30 (Claims Appendix).
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentabili ty.
Smith
Wang et al.
Lazaar
Fish et al.
Berge
Ogawa
us 3,984,680
us 4,327,292
US 6,297,294 B 1
US 2002/0095127 Al
US 2007 /0266875 Al
US 2010/0183880 Al
Oct. 5, 1976
Apr. 27, 1982
Oct. 2, 2001
July 18, 2002
Nov. 22, 2007
July 22, 2010
The claims stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as follows:
1. claims 1-7, 12, 13, 22, 23, and 28 over Berge, Smith, and Wang;
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as ASML Netherlands B.V. Appeal
Br. 2.
2
Appeal 2016-006505
Application 13/189,145
2. claims 8 and 24 over Berge, Smith, Wang, and Ogawa;
3. claims 9, 10, 25, and 26 over Berge, Smith, Wang, Ogawa, and
Lazaar; and
4. claims 11 and 27 over Berge, Smith, Wang, Ogawa, and Fish.
Final 3-5.
The Examiner finds Berge teaches the methods recited in independent
claims 1, 7, and 12, with the exception of using "a luminescent marker pattern" and
providing "radiation incident ... at a non-orthogonal angle to the ... pattern"
(claims 1, 7, 12 (emphasis added)). See Final 3--4. The Examiner finds Smith
teaches a method of aligning a mask with a substrate that utilizes a luminescent
marker pattern. Id. at 3. The Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art would
have modified Berge' s alignment method to use a luminescent marker pattern
based on Smith's teaching that use of a luminescent marker pattern allows for
precise alignment of masks. Id. at 3--4. The Examiner finds Wang teaches
methods of aligning two members wherein, in the Figure 1 embodiment, an
orthogonal angle of irradiation is used, and in the Figure 4 embodiment, a non-
orthogonal angle of irradiation is used. Id. at 4. The Examiner thus finds the
ordinary artisan would have understood from Wang that orthogonal and non-
orthogonal angles of irradiation are known alternatives. See id. at 4. The
Examiner finds that, depending on the desired configuration of components within
the apparatus used for the alignment process, one of ordinary skill in the art would
have used a non-orthogonal angle of irradiation in the method of Berge, as
modified by Smith, with a predictable expectation of success. Id.
Appellants advance arguments in support of patentability of the independent
claims as well as several dependent claims. See generally Appeal Br. 7-28. As
further discussed below, we are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the
3
Appeal 2016-006505
Application 13/189,145
evidence relied on by the Examiner is insufficient to support the Examiner's
finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have further modified the method
of Berge, as modified by Smith, to provide radiation at a non-orthogonal angle to
the mask pattern as disclosed in Wang Figure 4. Accordingly, because we
determine the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 7, and
12, each of which requires that radiation is incident at a non-orthogonal angle to
the mask pattern, we need not address the additional arguments made by
Appellants in support of patentability of the claims.
The Examiner does not disagree with Appellants' assertion that Berge and
Smith disclose systems in which radiation is provided orthogonally, and that these
references do not suggest providing radiation at a non-orthogonal angle to the
mask pattern. See Ans. 2-3. As noted above, the Examiner finds Berge does not
disclose using a luminescent marker pattern in its alignment method, and relies on
Smith for a suggestion of using radiation emitted from a luminous marker on a
substrate. See Final 3. Smith discloses that "substrate alignment mark 15 when
struck by the incident X-rays 12 emits fluorescence X-rays 16 whose wavelength is
characteristic of the material of which the substrate alignment marks 15 are made,"
and these fluorescence X-rays are detected by fluorescence X-ray detector 17.
Smith 3: 18-24. Smith discloses the use of X-ray shield 18 to prevent X-rays from
source 11 from striking substrate 14 in regions other than substrate alignment mark
15. Id. at 3:33-35.
Appellants contend Wang discloses two distinct embodiments: in the Figure
1 embodiment, Wang discloses a method in which radiation is provided to a
luminescent marker pattern to produce a secondary, radiation emission (Appeal Br.
9); in the Figure 4 embodiment, relied on by the Examiner for a teaching of
providing radiation at a non-orthogonal angle, Wang discloses an entirely different
4
Appeal 2016-006505
Application 13/189,145
measurement technique (id. at 11-12). Appellants contend there is no support for
the Examiner's finding that the ordinary artisan would have had a reasonable
expectation of success in using the Figure 4 technique of providing radiation at a
non-orthogonal angle in a method that detects secondary radiation from
luminescent markers, such as in the method of the Figure 1 embodiment or in
Smith's method. See Appeal Br. 9-10.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not identified sufficient
evidence to support a finding that the ordinary artisan would have had a reasonable
expectation of success in using a non-orthogonal angle of irradiation in the method
of Berge, as modified by Smith. In Wang's Figure 4 embodiment, "[t]he first set
of alignment marks 64 on the first chosen member 60 is exposed to a flood of
incoherent radiation 70 to produce reflected radiation which passes through a lens
76 and is imaged on one surface 78 of an imaging detector means 80." Wang
14:62---67; see also id. at 15:35--47. By contrast, Wang's Figure 1 embodiment
utilizes a focused beam to detect secondary emissions. See id. at 9:4--24; compare
id. at 21 :40-22:2 (Example 1 ), with id. at 22:5-30 (Example 2). As indicated
above in the cited disclosure from column 3 of Smith, Smith's method of detecting
secondary emissions likewise utilizes a focused beam to detect secondary
emissions. The Examiner has not shown persuasively that the ordinary artisan
reasonably would have expected that Wang's teaching of using a flood of
incoherent radiation, incident to a mask pattern at a non-orthogonal angle, for
purposes of detecting reflected radiation, could be applied in a system that uses a
focused radiation beam for purposes of detecting secondary emissions emitted by a
luminescent marker pattern.
In sum, Appellants have identified harmful error in the Examiner's
obviousness determination as to independent claims 1, 7, and 12. Accordingly, we
5
Appeal 2016-006505
Application 13/189,145
do not sustain the rejection of these claims, or the rejections of dependent claims
2-6, 8-11, 13, and 22-28.
REVERSED
6