Ex Parte Melchior et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 25, 2013

11488879 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2013)

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. 11/488,879 07/17/2006 John T. Melchior 2006-0024-01 9170 7590 01/25/2013 Matthew K. Hillman Cymer, Inc. Legal Dept., MS/4-2C 17075 Thornmint Court San Diego, CA 92127-2413 EXAMINER VAN ROY, TOD THOMAS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2828 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/25/2013 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 JOHN T. MELCHIOR, RICHARD C. UJAZDOWSKI, and JAMES K. HOWEY ____________________ Appeal 2010-007278 1 Application 11/488,879 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, BRYAN F. MOORE, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The real party in interest is Cymer, Inc. (App. Br. 2.) Appeal 2010-007278 Application 11/488,879 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-20. (App. Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellants’ Invention Appellants invented a window assembly system (14a) containing a pressurized laser discharge chamber (10) capable of withstanding a reasonable overpressure without leaking in order to transmit the laser light without distortion. In particular, the chamber includes (i) a housing (16b) formed with a recess (32), (ii) an optic (20) having a first side (42) exposed to chamber pressure, and opposed to a second side (38), and (iii) a compliant member (24) disposed in recess spacing the second side (38) of the optic (20) from the housing under chamber pressures, and wherein the compliant member is compressible to allow the optic to mechanically abut the housing during chamber overpressure. (Spec. 2, ll. 23-30, Fig. 3A.) Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention as follows: 1. A window assembly for a pressurized laser discharge chamber, the assembly comprising: a housing formed with a recess; an optic having a first side exposed to chamber pressure and an opposed second side; a compliant member partially disposed in said recess spacing the second side of the optic from the housing under operating chamber pressures and compressible to allow the optic to mechanically abut the housing during a chamber overpressure. Appeal 2010-007278 Application 11/488,879 3 Prior Art Relied Upon The Examiner relied upon the following prior art as evidence of unpatentability: Biet US 3,715,684 Feb. 6, 1973 Terada US 5,197,078 Mar. 23, 1993 Miller US 6,069,909 May 30, 2000 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10 th ed., pg. 236) “compliant” Rejections on Appeal The Examiner rejected the claims on appeal as follows: 1. Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Terada and Miller. 2. Claims 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Terada, Miller, and Biet. ANALYSIS We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in the principal Brief, pages 5-15. Dispositive Issue : Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Terada and Miller teaches or suggests a compliant member disposed in a recess spacing the second side of an optic from the housing containing the recess, and the compliant member being Appeal 2010-007278 Application 11/488,879 4 compressible to allow the optic to mechanically abut the housing during chamber pressure, as recited claim 1? Appellants argue that the combination of Terada and Miller does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations emphasized above. (App. Br. 10- 15.) In particular, Appellants argue that even though Miller discloses O- rings in a window mount assembly, the O-rings merely function as seals, and not as a compressible element that spaces an optic from the housing under operating chamber pressures, and that allows the optic to abut the housing during chamber overpressure. (App. Br. 7-11.) Therefore, Appellants submit that Miller does not cure the noted deficiencies of Terada. (Id.) In response, the Examiner finds that because Miller discloses an O- ring that, under pressure, would seal a chamber to prevent the laser gas therein from escaping, the combination of Terada and Miller teaches or suggests the disputed limitations, as claimed. (Ans. 7-9.) On the record before us, we agree with the Examiner’s findings, and ultimate conclusion of obviousness. Terada discloses a laser chamber body (1) having gas sealed therein (col. 3, ll. 25-31) wherein the laser body includes a flange (3d) upon which a transparent laser window (2) mounted via a ring (3e). (Col. 4, ll. 3-5.) Next, Miller discloses pressing upon an O- ring to form a pressure tight seal between a laser window mount bolted to an end wall so as to withstand high pressure. (Col. 3, ll. 43-47, col. 6, ll. 1-7.) We find that because Miller’s O-ring is disposed between the laser mount and the wall, it serves to separate the wall from the window mount. Further, we note that Appellants have left unrebutted the Examiner’s finding that Appeal 2010-007278 Application 11/488,879 5 because O-ring serves to seal the window to the mount when the O-ring is pressured, Miller also discloses that the window mount abuts the wall, albeit indirectly, when the O-ring is pressured. (Ans. 8.) Therefore, we find on this record that replacing Terada’s ring with Miller’s O-ring, would predictably result in the O-ring serving as the compliant member between the laser window and the laser body thereby spacing the laser window from the laser body, as well as to allow them to indirectly abut each other when pressure is applied upon the compressible O-ring. We are therefore satisfied that the combination of Terada and Miller teaches or suggest the disputed limitations. It follows that Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over the proffered combination. Because Appellants reiterate for claims 2-20 the arguments presented for patentability of claim 1 above, and we find no deficiencies in the combination of Terada and Miller for Biet to cure, claims 2-20 fall together with claim 1 as set forth above. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.37(c)(1)(vii). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20 as set forth above. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED tj