Ex Parte Mulder et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 26, 201412076732 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte HEINE MELLE MULDER, JOHANNES JACOBUS MATHEUS BASELMANS, ADRIANUS FRANCISCUS PETRUS ENGELEN, MARKUS FRANCISCUS ANTONIUS EURLINGS, HENDRIKUS ROBERTUS MARIE GREENVENBROEK, PATRICIUS ALOYSIUS JACOBUS TINNEMANS, PAUL VAN DER VEEN, and WILFRED EDWARD ENDENDIJK ____________ Appeal 2012-0089271 Application 12/076,732 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, JAMES C. HOUSEL and GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1–4, 6–9, 11–21, and 23–26.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. 1 An oral hearing was held September 11, 2014. Appeal 2012-008927 Application 12/076,732 2 Appellants’ invention relates to a method including providing a beam of radiation using an illumination system which comprises an array of individually controllable elements and associated optical components arranged to convert the radiation beam into a desired illumination mode. (Spec. 2.) Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method comprising: providing a beam of radiation using an illumination system; using a patterning device to impart the radiation beam with a pattern in its cross-section; and projecting the patterned radiation beam onto a target portion of a substrate; wherein the illumination system comprises an array of individually controllable elements and associated optical components arranged to convert the radiation beam into a desired illumination mode; and wherein an allocation scheme is used to allocate different individually controllable elements to different parts of the illumination mode, the allocation scheme being selected to provide a desired modification of one or more properties of the illumination mode or of the radiation beam, and the allocation scheme includes selecting a number of individually controllable elements which direct radiation to a given location in the mode, the selection being dependent upon the intensity of radiation provided from each individually controllable element. The following rejections from the Final Office Action3 are presented for our review: I. Claims 1–4, 6–9, 11–21, and 23–26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as unpatentable over Koehler (US 2007/0165202 A1 published July 19, 2007). 2 According to Appellants claim 22 has been cancelled. (App. Br. 2.) 3 Final Action mailed July 22, 2011. Appeal 2012-008927 Application 12/076,732 3 II. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Koehler and Ljungblad (US 2006/0187517 A1 published Aug. 24, 2006). OPINION After review of the Examiner’s rejections and Appellants’ arguments, we affirm the rejection of claims 1–4, 6–9, 11–18, 20, and 23–25; we also affirm the rejection of claim 19 and enter a new ground of rejection for claims 21 and 26. Claims 1–4, 6–9, 11–18, 20, and 23–25 Appellants principally argue Koehler fails to disclose selecting the mirrors dependent upon the intensity of radiation provided from each of those mirrors as required by independent claim 1. (App. Br. 8–9.) Regarding independent claim 25, Appellants argue that Koehler appears to be silent regarding the claimed allocation scheme. (Id. at 13–14.) Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner properly identifies Koehler paragraphs 24–26, 30, and 54–57 as describing the claimed allocations scheme of claim 1. Koehler discloses the individual mirrors of the mirror arrangement can be varied to divide up the task of the spots produced and resulting in various spatial intensity distributions. (Koehler ¶¶ 24–25.) Koehler further discloses the individual mirror arrangement is used for the purpose of changing the angular distribution of the radiation incident on the mirror arrangement. Appellants acknowledge that Koehler describes producing different spatial intensity distributions by use of the illumination system. (App. Br. 14.) However, Appellants contend that Koehler does not disclose the claimed aspect of modification of the energy distribution as required by the subject matter of claim 25. This argument is not persuasive for the reasons set forth by the Examiner. (Ans. Appeal 2012-008927 Application 12/076,732 4 16.) We agree with the Examiner that Koehler discloses modification of the energy distribution of the illumination mode by controlling and changing the angles of the individual mirrors. Moreover, it is recognized that Appellants have not directed us to specific modifications that exclude the teachings of Koehler. Claims 21 and 26 In rejecting the subject matter of claims 21 and 26, the Examiner contends that Koehler discloses “virtually any desired illumination intensity distributions can be set in the pupil-shaping surface.” (Ans. 14; Koehler ¶ 11.) The Examiner further contends that the use of individually controllable mirror arrangements allows for obtaining desired light distributions and “made it possible to make a change in the resulted patterns, just by adjusting the angle of the same individual mirror elements (using the allocation scheme) such that beams can be directed to various locations of the pupil-shaping surface as desired by a particular illumination mode.” (Ans. 15.) We agree with Appellants that Koehler does not anticipate the subject matter of claims 21 and 26 because Koehler is silent with respect to the requirement of claims 21 and 26 wherein “the mirrors which are used to illuminate [the] circular areas during the first illumination are used to illuminate the quadrupole portion in the second illumination which is closest to that region of the annular shape.” (App. Br. 11.) Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 21 and 26. Appeal 2012-008927 Application 12/076,732 5 We however reject the subject matter of claims 21 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Koehler for the reasons provided by the Examiner. As set forth by the Examiner, Koehler discloses virtually any desired illumination intensity distributions can be set in the pupil-shaping surface. Koehler also describes adjustments to the illumination system to provide a desired angular distribution. (See Koehler ¶¶ 11, 47–54.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have sufficient skill to arrange the mirrors which are used to illuminate the circular areas during the first illumination to illuminate the quadrupole portion in the second illumination which is closest to that region of the annular shape. Appellants have not directed us to evidence that this arrangement produces unexpected results. Claim 19 Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over a combination of Koehler and Ljungblad. In response to this rejection, Appellants have not asserted non–obviousness based on the additional limitation set forth in claim 19 subject to this rejection by explaining how the additional reference applied thereto by the Examiner fails to establish the obviousness of the additional features recited in this claim. Because we do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive as to independent claim 1, it follows that these arguments are unpersuasive as to claim 19. ORDER The Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1–4, 6–9, 11–18, 20, and 23–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed. Appeal 2012-008927 Application 12/076,732 6 The Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 21 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed. Claims 21 and 26 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Koehler. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) in part states “new ground[s] of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that Appellants, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution will be remanded to the examiner . . . . (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . . AFFIRMED-IN-PART 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation