Ex Parte Mulder et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2014

12076732 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2014)

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