Ex Parte Mulder et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2014

11729960 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 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 EURLINGS,
HENDRIKUS ROBERTUS MARIE VAN GREEVENBROEK,
and PAUL VAN DER VEEN
__________

Appeal 2012-011217
Application 11/729,960
Technology Center 2800
__________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-7, 9-15, 18, and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Koehler.1,2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held
on September 9, 2014.

1 US 2007/0165202 A1, published July 19, 2007.
Appeal 2012-011217
Application 11/729,960

2

We REVERSE.
The subject matter on appeal relates to a lithographic apparatus and method.
Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1, 21, and 23 are the independent claims on appeal.
Claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief
dated February 9, 2012 (“App. Br.”).
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 in addition to or other than spatial or angular
intensity distribution of the illumination mode.
App. Br. 19 (emphasis added).
Claim 21 recites a lithographic apparatus comprising, inter alia, an
illumination system including
a controller arranged to allocate different individually
controllable elements to different parts of the illumination mode
according to an allocation scheme, the allocation scheme being
selected to provide a desired modification of one or more properties

2 Claims 8, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 24 are also pending. Claims 8, 16, and 17 are
objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, and claims 19, 20, and
24 are allowed. See Advisory Action dated November 25, 2011.
Appeal 2012-011217
Application 11/729,960

3

of the illumination mode or of the radiation beam in addition to or
other than spatial or angular intensity distribution of the illumination
mode.
App. Br. 23 (emphasis added).
Claim 23 recites a device manufacturing method comprising, inter alia, the
step of
conditioning a beam of radiation using an illumination system,
the conditioning including, controlling an array of individually
controllable elements and associated optical components of the
illumination system to convert the radiation beam into a desired
illumination mode, the controlling including allocating different
individually controllable elements to different parts of the illumination
mode in accordance with an allocation scheme, the allocation scheme
selected to provide a desired modification of one or more properties
of the illumination mode, the radiation beam or both in addition to or
other than spatial or angular intensity distribution of the illumination
mode.
App. Br. 23 (emphasis added).
B. DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Koehler discloses a method comprising, inter alia,
using an allocation scheme to allocate different individually controllable elements
(i.e., mirrors 20) to different parts of the illumination mode, wherein the allocation
scheme is selected to provide a high uniformity of light mixing. The Examiner
relies on the embodiment described in paragraph 67 of Koehler (i.e., Koehler
Figure 5) for support. The Examiner finds that a high uniformity of light mixing is
a property “in addition to or other than spatial or angular intensity distribution of
the illumination mode” as recited in claims 1, 21, and 23. Ans. 4-5.3

3 Examiner’s Answer dated May 30, 2012.
Appeal 2012-011217
Application 11/729,960

4

Referring to paragraph 67 of Koehler, the Appellants argue that the fly’s eye
condenser, not the allocation scheme, provides the uniformity of light mixing in
Koehler’s method. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 5.4
“Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all
elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim.” Connell v. Sears,
Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The claims on appeal recite that the allocation scheme is selected to provide
a desired modification of one or more properties of the illumination mode or of the
radiation beam “in addition to or other than spatial or angular intensity distribution
of the illumination mode” (e.g., uniformity of intensity of radiation). App. Br. 19,
23; Spec. ¶ 56. The Appellants disclose that “[t]he term ‘modification’ refers to a
comparison of the illumination mode or radiation beam before it is incident on the
array of mirrors and the illumination mode or radiation beam after it has been
reflected by the array of mirrors.” Spec. ¶ 82.
In the embodiment relied on by the Examiner (i.e., Koehler Figure 5),
Koehler discloses that a high uniformity of light mixing “is obtained by the
combined action of the controllable mirror arrangement 320 and the second
diffractive optical element 390 arranged downstream thereof between the mirror
arrangement and the pupil-shaping surface 331.” Koehler ¶ 67 (emphasis added).
However, the Examiner does not identify any properties of the illumination mode
or of the radiation beam that are modified by the controllable mirror arrangement
320 in the “combined action of the controllable mirror arrangement 320 and the
second diffractive optical element 390” to achieve the high uniformity of light
mixing. Koehler ¶ 67. Thus, the Examiner has failed to establish that the

4 Reply Brief dated July 27, 2012.
Appeal 2012-011217
Application 11/729,960

5

controllable mirror arrangement 320 modifies a property of the illumination mode
or of the radiation beam “in addition to or other than spatial or angular intensity
distribution of the illumination mode” as recited in the claims on appeal. App. Br.
19, 23.
The Examiner also finds that the following disclosure in Koehler describes
the claimed allocation scheme. Ans. 11-12, 13-14.
By means of suitable, computer-controlled alignment of the individual
mirrors, all the familiar two-dimensional illuminating light
distributions can be set in the first pupil-shaping surface 31, for
example conventional illuminations with different diameters, annular
settings, quadrupole or dipole settings. Differing from other systems,
it is moreover also possible to set any other desired light distributions
variably in the pupil-shaping surface 31. . . . The ability specifically
to set virtually any desired light distributions in the pupil-shaping
surface 31 can also be used for the purpose of influencing some pupil
properties such as pupil ellipticity or polar balance. This can be very
advantageous, since the intensity distribution of conventional laser
beams in no way has the desired form with a sharp light-dark
transition (the form of a top-head function). In the embodiment, the
angles at which the light beams open into the pupil plane 31 are at
most about 3º. This has a positive effect on the filling of the rod
integrator 45.
Koehler ¶ 55 (emphasis added).
Significantly, Koehler does not identify any of the “other desired light
distributions” that may be set with the disclosed system. Koehler ¶ 55; see also
Reply Br. 4 (disclosure “is silent with respect to the recited property in addition to
or other than spatial or angular intensity distribution of the illumination mode”).
Thus, the general disclosure of “other desired light distributions” in Koehler is not
a description, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102, of a property of the
illumination mode or of the radiation beam “in addition to or other than spatial or
angular intensity distribution of the illumination mode” as recited in claims 1, 21,
Appeal 2012-011217
Application 11/729,960

6

and 23. App. Br. 19, 23 (emphasis added); see also In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676,
681 (CCPA 1962) (a broad generic disclosure does not by itself describe a
narrower species within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102).
Similarly, the Examiner does not direct us to any disclosure in Koehler
describing how pupil properties such as pupil ellipticity and polar balance are
influenced by the computer-controlled mirror arrangement disclosed in Koehler.
See Reply Br. 5 (Koehler fails to disclose, “for example, for a particular spatial and
angular intensity distribution, causing certain mirrors to direct more radiation to an
outer portion than to an inner portion to correct for apodization within the
illumination mode[.]”).
For the reasons set forth above, the Examiner has failed to establish that
Koehler describes an allocation scheme as recited in claims 1, 21, and 23.
Therefore, the § 102(e) rejection is not sustained.
C. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED

cdc