Ex Parte Hazelton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2017

13941849 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 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.
13/941,849 07/15/2013 Andrew J. HAZELTON 123676.03 6691
25944 7590
OLIFF PLC
P.O. BOX 320850
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22320-4850
EXAMINER
LIU, CHIA HOW MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2882
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2017 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):
OfficeAction25944@oliff.com
j armstrong @ oliff.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW J. HAZELTON and HIROAKI TAKAIWA
Appeal 2015-0018411
Application 13/941,849
Technology Center 2800
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, GARTH D. BAER, AND SHARON FENICK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify Nikon Corporation as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-001841
Application 13/941,849
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—53. App. Br. 8. Oral argument was
heard jointly for the present appeal and related Appeal No. 2015-001774
(Application No. 13/938,491) on January 19, 2017. A transcript of the
hearing will be placed in the record in due course. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
BACKGROUND
A. The Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to “a liquid immersion lithography
apparatus and method [that] exposes a substrate with light via a projection
system and liquid.” Abstract.
Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below.
1. A liquid immersion lithography apparatus which
exposes a substrate with light via a projection
optical system and a liquid, the apparatus
comprising:
a table assembly that has a top surface and is
movable relative to the projection optical system
while supporting the substrate at a top surface side
of the table assembly, each of the top surface and
the supported substrate being positionable opposite
to the projection optical system such that an
immersion area, which is locally formed with the
liquid under the projection optical system, is
maintained between the projection optical system
and a portion of one of the top surface and a surface
of the supported substrate or both; and
a sensor that has a top surface; wherein
2
Appeal 2015-001841
Application 13/941,849
the table assembly has a first opening portion
at the top surface of the table assembly and is
movable relative to the immersion area while
maintaining the immersion area under the
projection optical system,
the top surface of the sensor is arranged
inside of the first opening portion and is
positionable opposite to the projection optical
system by the table assembly such that a gap, in
which the liquid is capable of being maintained, is
formed between the projection optical system and
the top surface of the sensor, and
the top surface of the table assembly and the
top surface of the sensor are apposed on a
substantially same plane, or are substantially co-
planar.
App. Br. A-l.
B. The Rejection on Anneal
The Examiner rejects claims 1—53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Fukami (WO 99/49504; Mar. 16, 1999) in view of Miyajima
(US 6,801,301 B2; Oct. 5, 2004). Final Act. 2.
C. Appellants’ Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1—53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
The purge plates of Miyajima et al. simply prevent gas from
flowing downward along the side of the substrate, which would
cause a change in pressure that adversely affects the gas purge
process; the purge plates do not prevent the gas from leaking at
the periphery of the substrate. The purge gas in Miyajima et al.
in fact does flow/leak outward over and beyond the top surface
of the purge plates as shown in Figs. 5A and 5B___As Miyajima
et al. does not address liquid, Miyajima et al. does not teach
designing the purge plates to prevent the leakage of liquid when
3
Appeal 2015-001841
Application 13/941,849
exposure occurs near the edge of a substrate.
App. Br. 10—11 (internal quotation marks omitted).
2. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1—53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
There would have been no reason to include the purge plates
(25a, 25b, 18a, 19a, 1014) of Miyajima et al. in the liquid
immersion exposure apparatus of Fukami et al. Fukami et al.,
which does not use a purge gas between the projection system
and the substrate because liquid is in that location, would not
suffer from the problem addressed by Miyajima et al. . . .
Moreover, because Fukami et al. has liquid recovery
nozzles to recover the supplied liquid and thereby precisely
control the liquid immersion area, unlike Miyajima et al., which
only has gas supply nozzles but no recovery nozzles (such that
the supplied gas escapes laterally, which causes the oxygen
concentration problem addressed by Miyajima et al.), it is not
seen how the teachings of Miyajima et al. even are applicable to
Fukami et al.
App. Br. 12.
3. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1—53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Specifically, because Miyajima et al. does not disclose a size of
a space between the periphery of the wafer and the purge plates,
the references do not disclose a structure that would prevent
leakage of liquid when the immersion area is located over
positions that overlap the gap between the purge plates and the
wafer or sensor.
App. Br. 15.
ANAFYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. Except as noted below, we adopt
4
Appeal 2015-001841
Application 13/941,849
as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We
highlight the following additional points.
As to Appellants’ above contention 1, we disagree. As Appellants
recognize, Miyajima’s purge plates prevent gas leaking down at the edge of
the substrate. See App. Br. 10; Miyajima 5:67—6:3, Figs. 5A, 5B. It does
not undermine the Examiner’s rationale for combining the references that
Miyajima’s purge plates, when combined with Fukami, would not prevent
liquid from flowing outward past the substrate’s periphery and past the
purge plate’s top surface, as Appellants contend, because Fukami has a
different mechanism for restraining such lateral flow, i.e., a dividing wall.
See Fukami, 23 (Applicant provided translation). In addition, Appellants
offer no explanation as to how the gas/liquid distinction might impact using
Miyajima’s purge plates in Fukami and we agree with the Examiner that
“[ejven though the liquid of Fukami et al. has different characteristics from
the gas of Miyajima et al., the concept of the purge plates can still be applied
to prevent fluid leaking from the periphery of the substrate.” Ans. 2—3.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one
skilled in the art to combine Miyajima’s sensor and top surface table
assembly with Fukami’s liquid immersion lithography apparatus “to
calibrate and measure the illuminance of exposure light and for the purpose
of preventing leakage of the liquid at the periphery of the substrate.” Final
Act. 3^4 (internal citation omitted).
5
Appeal 2015-001841
Application 13/941,849
As to Appellants’ above contention 2, we disagree. To qualify as
analogous art, a reference must be either in the same field of endeavor as
Appellants’ invention or reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the
inventor was concerned. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir.
1992). Despite the gas/liquid distinction between Miyajima and Fukami,
both references are analogous art to the claimed invention because, like the
claimed invention, both are drawn to photolithography. In addition,
Fukami’s liquid recovery nozzles do not undermine the Examiner’s
combination, as Appellants suggest, because they do not teach away from
using Miyajima’s sensor and top surface table assembly. See In re Fulton,
391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The prior art’s mere disclosure of
more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of
these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or
otherwise discourage the solution claimed in the . . . application.”). In fact,
Fukami explicitly recognizes that “it is difficult to recover all the supplied
liquid with an inflow nozzle.” Fukami, 23 (Applicant provided translation).
Thus, combining Miyajima’s top surface table assembly would, as the
Examiner explains, add sensor functionality (i.e., calibrating/measuring
exposure light illuminance), while preventing leaks at the substrate’s
periphery. See Final Act. 3^4 (citing Miyajima, 5:25—28, 5:57—6:3).
As to Appellants’ above contention 3, we disagree. Independent
claims 1,21, and 43 require an immersion area “maintained between the
projection optical system and a portion of one of the top surface and a
surface of the supported substrate or both.” As the Examiner explains,
Miyajima teaches a gap space small enough to prevent a pressure decrease in
the purge space and, in Figure 3, depicts the substrate/purge plate gap and
6
Appeal 2015-001841
Application 13/941,849
sensor/purge plate gap as small relative to the other elements. Ans. 4—5
(citing Miyajima 5:67—6:3). We agree with the Examiner that such a gap
would be small enough to prevent a significant amount of liquid from
leaking into the gap, thus maintaining the immersion area as the disputed
claims require. See id.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1,21, and 43, as well as claims 2—20, 22-42, and 44—53,
which Appellants have not argued separately. See App. Br. 8—15.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—53. No time period
for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7