Ex Parte Scaccabarozzi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 27, 2016

12989045 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/989,045 10/21/2010 909 7590 06/01/2016 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) PO Box 10500 McLean, VA 22102 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Luigi Scaccabarozzi 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 081468-0390095 6376 EXAMINER LIU, CHIA HOW MICHAEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2882 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2016 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): docket_ip@pillsburylaw.com heather.marthers@pillsburylaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LUIGI SCACCABAROZZI, VLADIMIR VIT ALEVICH IVANOV, KONSTANTIN NIKOLAEVICH KOSHELEV, JOHANNES HUBERTUS JOSEPHINA MOORS, LUCAS HENRICUS JOHANNES STEVENS, PAVEL STANISLA VOVICH ANTSIFEROV, VLADIMIR MIHAILOVITCH KRIVTSUN, LEONID ALEXANDROVICH DOROKHIN, and MAARTEN VAN KAMPEN Appeal2015-000634 Application 12/989,045 Technology Center 2800 Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1, 9-13, 15, 20-23, and 26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE and enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION. Appeal2015-000634 Application 12/989,045 BACKGROUND Claim 1 recites the following: 1. A lithographic apparatus comprising: an illumination system configured to condition a beam of radiation; a support structure configured to support a patterning device, the patterning device being configured to impart a pattern to the beam of radiation; a projection system configured to project the beam of radiation patterned by the patterning device onto a substrate; the apparatus being configured to pass the beam of radiation through gas adjacent the patterning device to generate a plasma; and a patterning device cleaning system configured to provide an electrostatic force to contaminant particles that are on the patterning device and that are electrically charged by electrons that are liberated during the formation of the plasma generated by the beam of radiation, in order to remove the contaminant particles from the patterning device. App. Br. 11. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 9-11, 13, 15, 20-23, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as anticipated by Bakker et al. (US 7,116,394 B2; issued Oct. 3, 2006). Final Act. 2--4. The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bakker and Owen (US 2006/0012760 Al; published Jan. 19, 2006). Id. at 5. ANALYSIS The Examiner found Bakker discloses a lithographic projection apparatus including a surface that has a layer of contamination material, 2 Appeal2015-000634 Application 12/989,045 wherein the surface attracts negative charge carriers. See Ans. 4; Final Act. 2; Bakker Fig. 1, item 1; Fig. 3, items 104, 105. The Examiner also found Bakker discloses inserting a gas near the surface and ionizing the gas by generating electrons with Extreme Ultra Violet or Deep Ultra Violet ("EUV /DUV") radiation. See Ans. 4 (citing Bakker col. 11, 11. 44--46). The Examiner explained "[t]his process of ionizing gas produces a plasma and releases electrons from the gas." See id. According to the Examiner, when the gas is ionized in Bakker, electrons are liberated and charge carriers are generated. See id. The Examiner found these charge carriers are attracted to Bakker' s surface and electrically charge the surface's contamination layer in an effort to remove the contamination and clean the surface. See id at 3, 4; Bakker col. 9, 11. 28-31. Moreover, given that Bakker's cleaning system may be provided with radiation from the radiation source LA of Bakker's apparatus, the Examiner found the EUV /DUV radiation used to ionize the gas is conditioned by an illumination system ("IL"), patterned by the patterning device ("MA"), and projected by the projection system ("PL") of Bakker's apparatus. See Ans. 3 (citing Bakker Figs. 1-2; col. 14, 11. 25-29). Based on these findings and explanations, the Examiner found Bakker discloses the apparatus being configured to pass the beam of radiation through gas adjacent the patterning device to generate a plasma a patterning device cleaning system configured to provide an electrostatic force to contaminant particles that are on the patterning device and that are electrically charged by electrons that are liberated during the formation of the plasma generated by the beam of radiation, in order to remove the contaminant particles from the patterning device as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 3--4; App. Br. 11. 3 Appeal2015-000634 Application 12/989,045 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding that Bakker discloses this limitation of claim 1. See App. Br. 5-7. Specifically, Appellants contend although Bakker discloses a gas is inserted near the surface and then ionized with electrons generated with EUV /DUV radiation, Bakker does not disclose that "ionizing gas produces a plasma," as posited by the Examiner. See App. Br. 6-7; Bakker col. 11, 11. 44--46; Ans. 4. Further, contrary to the Examiner's findings, Appellants contend Bakker does not disclose that the EUV /DUV radiation used to ionize the gas is a beam of radiation conditioned by an illumination system, patterned by a patterning device, and projected by a projection system, as required by claim 1. See App. Br. 6. Instead, Appellants contend the cited portion of Bakker merely discloses "that the radiation from the radiation source LA may be projected on the surface being cleaned." Id. We agree with Appellants. As found by the Examiner, Bakker discloses that "[t]he charge carriers may already be present ... or generated during the cleaning. For example, a gas can be inserted near the surface to be cleaned and then be ionized by energetic electrons generated with ... EUV/DUV radiation." Bakker col. 11, 11. 44--46; see Ans. 4. We agree with the Examiner that this passage discloses "electrons that are liberated," but the Examiner has not shown that Bakker's electrons are liberated "during the formation of the plasma" as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 6-7. Further, we find the Examiner has not shown that Bakker' s EUV /DUV radiation used to ionize a gas discloses the claimed "beam of radiation." As found by the Examiner, Bakker discloses that "the cleaning systems 100 in FIGS. 3 and 4 may be provided with a radiation device or radiation from the radiation source LA in FIGS. 1 and 2 may be projected on the surface." See Ans. 6 4 Appeal2015-000634 Application 12/989,045 (citing Bakker col. 14, 11. 25-29). This passage discloses that the EUV/DUV radiation used in Bakker's cleaning system may be provided from the radiation source LA of Bakker's apparatus. See Bakker col. 14, 11. 25-29. But the Examiner has not shown that this EUV /DUV radiation is the claimed "beam of radiation" that has been conditioned by an illumination system, patterned by a patterning device, and projected by a projection system. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, nor do we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 26, and dependent claims 9-11, 13, 15, and 20-23, each of which recites a similar limitation. See App. Br. 11-14. Regarding the obviousness rejection of claim 12, we conclude the Examiner erred by failing to provide an adequate rationale to combine or otherwise modify the teachings of Bakker and Owen in the claimed manner. See Final Act. 5; KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-21 (2007). NEW GROUND OF REJECTION WITHIN 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(b) Claim 1 Claim 1 is rejected on a new ground under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bakker. We adopt as our own the Examiner's findings regarding claim 1 except, as discussed above, Bakker does not explicitly disclose (1) electrons that are liberated "during the formation of the plasma" or (2) "the beam of radiation," as recited in the disputed limitation of claim 1. Nevertheless, for the following reasons, we conclude it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bakker's teachings to arrive at these limitations of claim 1. 5 Appeal2015-000634 Application 12/989,045 First, Appellants offer no definition of "plasma" or other explanation that would preclude the recited "plasma" from encompassing Bakker' s ionized gas. Furthermore, even though Bakker is silent as to whether the ionized gas used in its cleaning system is a "plasma" (Bakker col. 11, 11. 44-- 46), another portion of Bakker teaches that creating a plasma in a gas is an old and well known technique in the art (see id. col. 8, 11. 2-9). Given this fact and the other teachings of Bakker, we conclude that, to the extent that Bakker' s ionized gas is not a plasma, modifying Bakker' s ionized gas such that a plasma is formed would have been obvious and within the "inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. We also note that any difference between the ionization of Bakker' s gas and that of the recited "plasma" would be merely a matter of degree and not patentably distinguishable. Cf In re Pelzer, 92 F.2d. 925, 928 (CCPA 1937) (determining any difference in the level of vapor scrubbing between the prior art and the claimed invention was merely a matter of degree and would have been an obvious modification). For these reasons, we conclude it would have been obvious to modify Bakker' s ionized gas to form a "plasma" as claimed, thereby liberating more electrons to impinge the contamination layer and yield a more effective cleaning system. Cf id.; see Bakker col. 11, 11. 24--29; col. 14, 11. 14--15 ("[T]he removal of contamination is increased since more cleaning particles are present."). Second, Bakker is silent as to whether the EUV /DUV radiation used with its cleaning system is a "beam of radiation" that has been conditioned by an illumination system, patterned by a patterning device, and projected by a projection system. See Bakker col. 11, 11. 44--46. Be that as it may, 6 Appeal2015-000634 Application 12/989,045 Bakker still evidences that such a "beam of radiation" is known in the art. See Bakker Fig. 1 (items IL, MA, PL, and W, and dashed arrows between them); col. 5, 11. 49-53, 59---66. Accordingly, because each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, we conclude that the claimed "beam of radiation" involves no more than a simple substitution of one known element-Bakker' s "beam of radiation"-for another known element-Bakker's EUV/DUV radiation. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. This simple substitution would predictably result in a system that cleans both the mask and substrate surfaces of Bakker's apparatus. Claims 9-13, 15, 20--23, and 26 We have entered a new ground of rejection for claim 1. We leave it to the Examiner to consider the patentability of independent claim 26, as well as dependent claims 9-13, 15, and 20-23, in light of our findings and conclusions above. The fact that we did not enter new grounds of rejection for claims 9-13, 15, 20-23, and 26 should not be construed to mean that we consider those claims to be directed to patentable subject matter or to be patentable over the prior art of record. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 9-13, 15, 20-23, and 26 is reversed. We enter a new ground of rejection for claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over Bakker. Section 41.50(b) provides that "[a] new ground of rejection ... shall not be considered final for judicial review." 7 Appeal2015-000634 Application 12/989,045 Section 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 underÂ§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). REVERSED 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(b) 8