Ex Parte Wakamatsu et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 1, 201713638839 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/638,839 10/01/2012 Satoshi Wakamatsu 8024-1033-1 1747 466 7590 06/05/2017 YOUNG fr THOMPSON EXAMINER 209 Madison Street RODRIGUEZ, MICHAEL P Suite 500 Alexandria, VA 22314 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1715 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/05/2017 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): DocketingDept@young-thompson.com y andtpair @ firsttofile. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SATOSHI WAKAMATSU and TADASHI OMATSU Appeal 2016-006999 Application 13/638,8391 Technology Center 1700 Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Primary Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21—26.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 The Applicants (hereinafter “Appellants”) state that the real party in interest is “Fujifilm Corporation” (Appeal Brief filed on October 30, 2015, hereinafter “Appeal Br.,” 1). 2 Appeal Br. 3—18; Reply Brief filed on July 5, 2016, hereinafter “Reply Br.,” 2—11; Examiner’s Answer (notice emailed on May 4, 2016), hereinafter “Ans.,” 2—9. Appeal 2016-006999 Application 13/638,839 BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to nano imprinting methods using a pattern of protrusions and recesses that transfer a pattern onto a resist layer that has been coated on an object so that fluctuations in the thickness of the resist layer and defects in the resist layer due to residual gas are suppressed. Specification, hereinafter “Spec.,” p. 1,11. 7—10, 18—23; p. 3,11. 21—27. Representative claim 21 is reproduced from page 20 of the Appeal Brief (Claims Appendix), as follows (emphasis added): 21. A nanoimprinting method, comprising: coating a substrate with a plurality of droplets of resist material by an inkjet method; and pressing a linear pattern of protrusions and recesses of a mold onto the surface of the substrate which is coated with the droplets, to spread the droplets on the substrate, to form a resist film constituted by bonds among the spread plurality of droplets and to transfer the linear pattern of protrusions and recesses onto the resist film; the droplets being coated on the substrate such that the spaces among droplets in an A direction substantially parallel to the direction of the lines of the linear pattern of protrusions and recesses are longer than the spaces among droplets in a B direction substantially perpendicular to the A direction within a line transfer region of the substrate that faces the linear pattern of protrusions and recesses when the linear pattern of protrusions and recesses is pressed against the substrate. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL On appeal, the Examiner maintains several rejections, which are as follows (Ans. 2—5): I. Claims 21 and 23 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as 2 Appeal 2016-006999 Application 13/638,839 being anticipated by Lad et al.3 (hereinafter “Lad”); II. Claims 21 and 23 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lad; III. Claims 22 and 24 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lad; and IV. Claims 25 and 26 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lad in view of Schram et al.4 (hereinafter “Schram”). DISCUSSION Rejection I The Examiner rejects claims 21 and 23 under § 102(b) over Lad. Ans. 2—3. Because the Appellants argue these claims together, we select claim 1 as representative of the issues discussed below. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds Lad discloses a nano-scale imprint lithography method in which, among other things, a substrate is coated with droplets of material via an inkjet and a mold including a linear pattern of protrusions and recesses is pressed on the droplets. Ans. 2. The Examiner finds the equations disclosed in paragraphs 23—26 of Lad include situations in which Li < L2, and thus Si < S2 when ni = n2.5 Id. The Examiner finds Figure 6 3 US 2005/0270312 Al, published on December 8, 2005. 4 US 2008/0018875 Al, published on January 24, 2008. 5 According to Lad, Li is a length of region 40 along a first direction, L2 is a length of region 40 along a second direction, Si is a spacing of droplets 36 along the first direction, S2 is a spacing of droplets 36 along the second 3 Appeal 2016-006999 Application 13/638,839 depicts a situation in which Li < L2. Id. In view of this, the Examiner finds the droplets of Lad along the L2 direction (i.e., the A direction) have a greater spacing than droplets along the Li direction (i.e., B direction), with the droplets along the A direction being oriented substantially parallel to the lines of the linear pattern of the protrusions and recesses depicted in Figure 2 of Lad. Id. at 2—3. The Appellants contend Lad does not disclose droplets having a spacing in an A direction that is greater than the spacing of droplets in a B direction, as recited in claim 21. Appeal Br. 5—6. The Appellants argue Lad is silent with regard to whether Li is less than L2 and it is improper for the Examiner to rely upon Figure 6 for dimensions. Id. at 9—10. The Appellants assert that “while Fig. 6 of Lad appears to disclose that L2>Li, this appearance is due to the fact that the lengths of the margins at the ends differ greatly, and the droplet intervals are the same.” Id. at 12—13. The Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive. In determining whether a reference anticipates the subject matter recited in a claim, “it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In rePreda, 401 F. 2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968). Here, Lad discloses equations in paragraphs 22—26 that relate the number of droplets, the length of a droplet region, and the spacing of droplets. As the Examiner finds in the rejection,* * 6 a person having ordinary skill in the art would have drawn a reasonable inference from these direction, ni is a total number of droplets 36 along the first direction, and n2 is a total number of droplets along the second direction. Lad 21—26. 6 Ans. 2. 4 Appeal 2016-006999 Application 13/638,839 equations that Lad describes—with sufficient specificity—situations in which Li < L2, and thus droplet spacing Si < droplet spacing S2 when the number of droplets equal each other in the two directions (i.e., ni = n2). Ans. 2. Although Lad assumes a square array of droplets in paragraph 22 to illustrate an embodiment, Lad does not limit its disclosure to a square array of droplets because Lad discloses “droplets 36 may be arranged in virtually any two-dimensional arrangement on substrate 30.” Lad 121. Indeed, the overlap between the Appellants’ claimed subject matter and Lad’s disclosure constitutes a significant portion of the prior art disclosure as a whole. See In re Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 317 (CCPA 1978) (In order to anticipate, a reference must identify something falling within the claimed subject matter with sufficient specificity to constitute a description thereof within the purview of § 102.). Further, it is well established that specific examples of the claimed subject matter are not necessary to establish anticipation. Rather, to anticipate, one skilled in the art must be able to “at once envisage” the claimed subject matter in the prior art disclosure. In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (CCPA 1962). Regardless of whether the droplet spacings Si and S2 are the same or different, Figure 6 reasonably discloses or suggests an embodiment in which L2 > Li, as conceded by the Appellants. Appeal Br. 12—13. As shown in Figure 6, there is an equal number of droplets along the Li direction and along the L2 direction. Using the equations disclosed by Lad, one can readily determine that the spacing of droplets along the Li direction would be greater than the spacing of droplets along the L2 direction when L2 > Li and the number of droplets ni, n2 are equal in the two directions. Therefore, the disclosure of Lad, when considered in its totality, discloses or suggests 5 Appeal 2016-006999 Application 13/638,839 the spacing of droplets along the A direction and B direction recited in claim 21.7 The Appellants further dispute the Examiner’s finding that Lad discloses a linear pattern of protrusions and recesses, as recited in claim 21. Appeal Br. 7. Specifically, the Appellants contend Figure 6 of Lad depicts a top down view of droplets, not a linear pattern of protrusions and recesses, and that although the mold 28 depicted in Figure 2 of Lad includes recessions 28a and protrusions 28b, Lad does not disclose that the recessions 28a and protrusions 28b are arranged in a linear pattern. Id.', Reply Br. 3^4. The Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive. As the Examiner states on page 6 of the Answer, Figure 2 of Lad depicts a mold 28 that includes recessions 28a and protrusions 28b. Lad 115. The Examiner further compares Figure 2 to the cross-sectional view depicted in Figure 4A of the Appellants’ disclosure, which depicts a mold with a linear pattern of protrusions and recesses,8 and finds them to have the same pattern of protrusions and recesses. Ans. 6. The Examiner’s findings and explanation are reasonable in view of Lad’s disclosure, including its disclosure that droplets fill the recessions 28a of the mold 289 and the depiction of droplets (which must fill the recessions 28a) arranged in rows and columns in Figure 7 Figure 13A of the Appellants’ disclosure is described at page 42, lines 27— 35, of the Specification as depicting a relationship between resolution and a droplet arrangement pattern for a conventional method, with L denoting droplet locations. Figure 13A appears to disclose a pattern in which droplet spacing (i.e., spacing between droplet locations L) is greater along one direction (i.e., the vertical direction of Figure 13 A) than along another direction (i.e., the horizontal direction of Figure 13 A). 8 Spec. p. 16,11.5-6, 10-11. 9 Lad 118. 6 Appeal 2016-006999 Application 13/638,839 6. In addition, Lad does not disclose that the recessions 28a and protrusions 28b extend in any other direction than one normal to the page of Figure 2. The Appellants argue Figure 2E of the Appellants’ disclosure is equivalent to Figure 2 of Lad and state, as a comparison, that the patterns depicted in Figures 2A—2D of the Appellants’ disclosure provide examples of linear patterns of protrusions and recesses. Appeal Br. at 7—8; Reply Br. 2—6. This argument is unpersuasive because the Appellants do not explain how the mold depicted in Figure 2 of Lad would have the same pattern as Figure 2E of the Appellants’ disclosure. Further, the Appellants’ Specification states the linear patterns of Figures 2 A—2D cause anisotropy to occur in the spreading of droplets. Spec. p. 24,11. 16—25. In contrast, the Specification states Figure 2E depicts a pattern that does not result in the anisotropy. Id. at p. 24,1. 34, to p. 25,1. 5. In view of this, the Appellants appear to consider Figure 2E as lacking a linear pattern of protrusions and recesses because it does not produce anisotropic behavior in the spreading of droplets, as explained at page 4, lines 26—31, of the Specification. However, such anisotropy is not recited in claim 21. Moreover, Lad discloses the process of claim 21 and the structures used in the claimed method. Therefore, it is reasonable that the mold of Lad would provide the anisotropy described in the Appellants’ Specification. In addition, the Appellants assert Lad does not disclose that the droplets arranged along the A direction are substantially parallel to the lines of the linear pattern of protrusions and recesses, as recited in claim 21. Appeal Br. 10-11. Specifically, the Appellants argue Figure 6 does not indicate how the deposited droplets would be oriented with respect to Lad’s mold, Lad does not describe how the first and second directions of Figure 6 7 Appeal 2016-006999 Application 13/638,839 relate to the mold of Figure 2, and Lad does not disclose what direction the grooves of Lad’s mold extend in. Id. at 10-12. The Examiner finds the droplet pattern depicted in Figure 6 of Lad are related to the imprint pattern of the mold 28 in Figure 2 of Lad, which the Examiner finds to have a linear pattern of protrusions and recesses (e.g., extending in and out of the page of Figure 2), and interpreting Lad another way would require rotation between the droplet pattern of Figure 6 and the mold of Figure 2, which is not described by Lad. Ans. 8. The Appellants’ arguments do not direct us to a reversible error in the Examiner’s findings. The Appellants further argue that the recessions 28a in Figure 2 of Lad would be aligned with the Li direction of Figure 6, not the L2 direction, so one would have to rotate the mold 28 so the recessions 28a are substantially parallel to the L2 direction. Reply Br. 6—8. This interpretation of Lad’s disclosure is unpersuasive because it relies upon the positioning of components in Figure 2 that are depicted schematically. Therefore, Lad’s disclosure does not support Appellants’ argument that the mold 28 of Lad would need to be rotated so its recessions 28a are substantially parallel with the droplets arranged along the L2 direction of Figure 6. The Appellants do not argue claim 23 separately from claim 21. Appeal Br. 3—15. For these reasons and those discussed in the Examiner’s Answer, we uphold the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of claims 21 and 23. Rejection II In any extent claims 21 and 23 are not anticipated by Lad, claims 21 and 23 are also rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Lad. Ans. 4—5. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to a person 8 Appeal 2016-006999 Application 13/638,839 having ordinary skill to employ any of the finite set of conditions (i.e., Li < L2, Li = L2, or Li > L2) that would have been envisaged from the disclosure of Lad. Id. Further, the Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to align the substrate of Figure 6 of Lad so the axis between the top and bottom of the page of Figure 6 is arranged parallel to the grooves in the mold of Figure 2 because such an orientation is one of a finite set selectable by one of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 5. The Appellants’ arguments do not identity a reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. Paragraph 21 of Lad states “droplets 36 may be arranged in virtually any two-dimensional arrangement on substrate 30” and paragraphs 22—26 do not exclude situations in which Li and L2 differ, which would provide different droplet spacings Si, S2 when the number of droplets ni and n2 are equal, as discussed above. Thus, one may draw a reasonable inference from Lad’s disclosure that droplets may have a spacing such that droplets along an A direction have a greater spacing than droplets along a B direction, as recited in claim 21. Moreover, in view of Lad’s disclosure that various droplet arrangements may be employed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the workable ranges for droplet spacing and alignment between the droplets and the mold of Lad. We further note the Appellants do not submit any evidence of criticality for the droplet spacing and/or orientation of the droplets to the linear pattern of protrusions and recesses recited in claim 21. For these reasons and those discussed in the Examiner’s Answer, we uphold the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 21 and 23. 9 Appeal 2016-006999 Application 13/638,839 Rejection III The Examiner rejects Claims 22 and 24 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Lad. Ans. 3. In the rejection of claim 22, the Examiner finds Lad discloses the use of any desired thickness, that droplet volume is a function of a desired thickness and area for a coating, and droplet spacing is a function of region dimensions and the volume necessary to form a coating layer of a desired thickness. Ans. 3. The Examiner finds Lad does not disclose the spacing ratio recited in claim 22 but concludes it would have been obvious to optimize droplet spacing through the course of routine experimentation and thus deposit droplets that fall within the spacing ratio range of claim 22. Id. The Appellants argue “it has been found that extracting a ratio from data or observations is insufficient” and cite several cases as support for this argument. Appeal Br. 16. This argument does not direct us to a reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection because the argument, as well as the cases cited by the Appellants, do not address whether it would have been obvious to determine workable ranges or optimize the spacing of droplets via routine experimentation, as concluded by the Examiner, and deposit droplets with spacings that fall within the ratio range recited in claim 22. Moreover, the disclosure of Lad itself suggests a situation in which L2 > Li, which provides droplet spacings of S2 > Si when ni = n2, as discussed above. The Appellants further argue Lad teaches away from the claimed droplet spacing because the objective of Lad is to minimize droplet spacing Si and S2. Reply Br. 8—9. This argument is unpersuasive because, in a determination of obviousness, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the 10 Appeal 2016-006999 Application 13/638,839 art. Merck & Co v. Biocraft Labs., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989). As discussed above, paragraph 21 of Lad discloses that droplets may be arranged in any two-dimensional arrangement. Therefore, although Lad may desire minimal droplet spacing, Lad also suggests other droplet arrangements, including those that may include non-optimal droplet spacing but nonetheless provide successful results. In the rejection of claim 24, the Examiner finds Lad discloses droplet spacing is dependent upon the resolution of a droplet dispensing apparatus. Ans. 3. The Appellants assert Lad discloses altering droplet spacing to apply droplets to an uneven surface and there is “no teaching or inference of directional anisotropy (A vs. B direction) in Lad.” Appeal Br. 16—17. The Appellants further contend Lad discloses a minimal spacing between droplets and that any arrangement of Lad’s (e.g., the arrangement depicted in Figure 6) in which droplet spacing is not minimized is not intentional. Reply Br. 9—11. The Examiner finds that paragraph 27 discloses droplet spacing as dependent upon resolution of a droplet dispensing apparatus and determines that resolution would decrease when droplet spacing increases. Ans. 9. Paragraph 27 of Lad supports the Examiner’s finding and determination by disclosing “that spacings Si and S2 are dependent upon the resolution, i.e., operational control of a droplet dispensing apparatus (not shown) employed to form droplets 36.” Therefore, the prior art does disclose a relationship between droplet spacing and resolution and Appellants’ arguments do not identify a reversible error in the Examiner’s findings or rejection. 11 Appeal 2016-006999 Application 13/638,839 For these reasons and those set forth by the Examiner, we uphold the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22 and 24. Rejection IV For claims 25 and 26, the Appellants contend Schram does not cure the deficiencies of Lad. Appeal Br. 17—18. For the reasons set forth above, there are no deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1 that require curing by Schram. We therefore uphold the Examiner’s rejection of claims 25 and 26 for the same reasons as for the rejection of claim 1. SUMMARY Rejections I—IV are affirmed. Therefore, the Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 21—26 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 12 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation