KEMPER, Nicolaas Rudolf. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 20, 2019

13187055 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2019)

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.
13/187,055 07/20/2011 Nicolaas Rudolf KEMPER 081468-0396953 5474
909 7590 12/20/2019
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP
PO Box 10500
McLean, VA 22102
EXAMINER
ASFAW, MESFIN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2882
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/20/2019 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
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NICOLAAS RUDOLF KEMPER,
SJOERD NICOLAAS LAMBERTUS DONDERS,
JOOST JEROEN OTTENS, EDWIN CORNELIS KADIJK, and
SERGEI SHULEPOV
Appeal 2018-004000
Application 13/187,055
Technology Center 2800
BEFORE ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal 2018-004000
Application 13/187,055
2
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21, 29, 33, 37, 45–53, and 55–61.3 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “a lithographic apparatus and a method for
manufacturing a device.” Spec. ¶ 2. The Specification describes providing
for the removal of liquid from systems in which the substrate is immersed in
a liquid. Id. ¶ 10. Claims 21 and 57, reproduced below, are illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
21. A lithographic apparatus, comprising:
a movable table;
a projection system configured to project a beam of
radiation onto a surface;
a liquid supply system configured to provide a liquid to a
space between an object, when on the table, and the projection
system; and

1 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Specification filed July
20, 2011 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action mailed May 25, 2016 (“Final
Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed February 15, 2017 (“Appeal Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer mailed January 5, 2018 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief
filed March 5, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as ASML
Netherlands B.V. Appeal Br. 2.
3 Claims 1–20, 22–28, 30–32, 34–36, 39, 40, and 54 have been canceled.
Appeal Br. 2. Claims 38 and 41–44 have been allowed. Id.; Final Act. 9.
Appeal 2018-004000
Application 13/187,055
3
a drain in the table configured to contain liquid which
leaks through a gap between an edge of the object and the table
into the drain, the drain comprising:
a chamber having an opening; and
a porous structure to allow fluid therethrough, the
porous structure vertically spaced apart from and below
the top of the gap and having a width sufficient to extend
at least across the opening.
Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.).
57. A lithographic apparatus, comprising:
a movable table;
a projection system configured to project a beam of
radiation onto a surface;
a liquid supply system configured to provide a liquid to a
space between an object, when on the table, and the projection
system; and
a passive liquid removal device in the table, the passive
liquid removal configured to move liquid which leaks through a
gap between an edge of the object and a nearest edge of the table
to the edge of the object, by a force other than, or in addition to,
gravity and low pressure toward an opening of a drain of the
table.
Appeal Br. 25 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
Claims 21, 29, 33, 37, 45–50, 53, 55, and 56 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of US
2004/0160582 A1, published Aug. 19, 2004 (“Lof”) and US 2005/0219488
A1, published Oct. 6, 2005 (“Nei”). Final Act. 2–6.
Claims 51 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Lof, Nei, and US 2005/0175776 A1,
published Aug. 11, 2005 (“Streefkerk”). Final Act. 7.
Appeal 2018-004000
Application 13/187,055
4
Claims 57–59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Lof and US 2005/0231694 A1,
published Aug. 11, 2011 (“Kolenychenko”). Final Act. 7–8.
Claims 60 and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Lof, Kolenychenko, and Nei. Final
Act. 9.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
To the extent Appellant has not advanced separate, substantive arguments
for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017).
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and any evidence
presented. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis in our analysis below.
Obviousness Over Lof and Nei
The Examiner rejected claims 21, 29, 33, 37, 45–50, 53, 55, and 56 as
obvious over Lof and Nei. Final Act. 2–6. Specifically, the Examiner finds
Lof discloses each of the limitations of claim 21 except “a porous structure
to allow fluid therethrough, the porous structure vertically spaced apart from
and below the top of the gap and having a width sufficient to extend at least
across the opening” (the “porous structure limitation”). Id. at 2–3. For
example, the Examiner points to Lof’s chamber 44 having an opening 47 as
the claimed “drain in the table configured to contain liquid which leaks
Appeal 2018-004000
Application 13/187,055
5
through a gap between an edge of the object and the table into the drain.”
Final Act. 3 (citing Lof Fig. 7c). Figure 7c of Lof is reproduced below.

Figure 7c of Lof, above, shows Lof’s disclosed lithographic apparatus with
“annular compartment 44” “positioned between an annular port 47 open to
the gap.”
The Examiner relies on Nei’s structure 21 as teaching or suggesting
the porous structure limitation. Id. at 3 (citing Nei Fig. 6, ¶ 66). Figure 6 of
Nei is reproduced below.
Appeal 2018-004000
Application 13/187,055
6

Figure 6 of Nei, reproduced above, “shows a magnified section view
illustrating major parts” of Nei’s disclosed exposure apparatus, including
“recovery unit 20 for recovering the liquid outflowed to the outside of
substrate P.” Nei ¶¶ 41, 65. “[M]ember 21 is an annular member having a
predetermined width,” “arranged in a groove 23,” and is “composed of, for
example, a porous material such as porous ceramics” that “is capable of
retaining the liquid in a predetermined amount.” Id. ¶ 66.
According to the Examiner, “it would have been obvious to . . .
incorporate a porous structure as claimed in order to retain the liquid spilled
from space 56.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner adds that “the porous material
Appeal 2018-004000
Application 13/187,055
7
of Nei has a predetermined size, and the height is not limited to be flush with
the top of grove 23.” Ans. 5. According to the Examiner, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated “to reduce the size (in a
way the height) of the porous material (for example) to reduce the amount of
liquid absorbed and thus lower weight of the substrate table.” Id. (citing Nei
¶ 80).
Appellant argues that Nei does not disclose that member 21 is
“vertically spaced apart from and below the top of a gap between an edge of
the object and the table” as claimed. Appeal Br. 7–8. Instead, Appellant
asserts that member 21 “is shown flush with the top of groove 23 and either
flush with or above the top of hole 46.” Id. at 8. Appellant disagrees with
the Examiner’s finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would reduce
the height of Nei’s member 21 because “doing so would appear to defeat
Nei’s purpose of preventing liquid from the auxiliary plate 59 going past
groove 23 of Nei.” Id. at 9. Finally, Appellant argues that nothing in the
Examiner’s reasoning explains why a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have changed the vertical relationship of member 21 and the table.
Id. at 10.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not sufficiently
explained why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have changed the
size of Nei’s member 21 or its vertical relationship to the table. The
Examiner’s explanation that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to reduce the size of member 21 to lower the weight of the
substrate table has multiple problems. First, the Examiner does not explain
why a person of ordinary skill in the art would want to reduce the weight of
the substrate table. See Reply Br. 4 (“[I]t is not apparent at all why a person
of ordinary skill in the art would want to ‘reduce the amount of liquid
Appeal 2018-004000
Application 13/187,055
8
absorbed.’”). Second, the Examiner does not explain how reducing the size
of member 21 would reduce the weight of the substrate table. The portion of
Nei to which the Examiner points for support for this assertion does not
mention lowering the weight of the substrate table, but instead states that
“liquid 50, which is absorbed by the liquid-absorbing member 21, is always
discharged to the outside of the substrate stage PST,” thus, “it is possible to
suppress the variation of the weight of the substrate stage PST, which would
be otherwise caused by the liquid 50.” Nei ¶ 80. We agree with Appellant
that this disclosure refers to reducing variation in weight, as opposed to
lowering weight, which “is accomplished by retaining, recovering and
exhausting the liquid” and not to simply reducing the amount of liquid
absolved by member 21. Reply Br. 5. Third, we agree with Appellant that
even if a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to reduce the
size of member 21, there is no reasoning provided by the Examiner
explaining why a reduction in size would lead to member 21 being
“vertically spaced apart from and below the top of the gap” as claimed.
Accordingly, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 21 as obvious over the combination of Lof and Nei. Independent
claims 37 and 53 contain similar limitations to those of claim 21 and,
therefore, their rejection suffers from the same issues as the rejection of
claim 21. Claims 29, 33, 45–50, 55, and 56 depend from claims 21 and 53,
and, therefore, their rejections suffer from the same problems as the rejection
of claim 21.
Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21, 29, 33, 37,
45–50, 53, 56, and 57 as obvious over Lof and Nei.
Appeal 2018-004000
Application 13/187,055
9
Obviousness Over Lof, Nei, and Streefkerk
The Examiner rejected claims 51 and 52 as obvious over Lof, Nei, and
Streefkerk. Final Act. 7. Claims 51 and 52 depend from claim 21 and,
therefore, their rejections suffer from the same problems as the rejection of
claim 21. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 51 and 52 over
Lof, Nei, and Streefkerk.
Obviousness Over Lof and Kolesnychenko
The Examiner rejected claims 57–59 as obvious over Lof and
Kolesnychenko. Final Act. 7–8. Claim 57 is independent and claims 58 and
59 depend from claim 57.
Specifically, the Examiner finds Lof discloses each of the limitations
of claim 57 except,
a passive liquid removal device in the table, the passive liquid
removal configured to move liquid which leaks through a gap
between an edge of the object and a nearest edge of the table to
the edge of the object, by a force other than, or in addition to,
gravity and low pressure toward an opening of a drain of the
table
(the “passive liquid removal device limitation”). Id. at 8. The
Examiner points to groove 100 and outlet 120 in Kolesnychenko as
teaching the passive liquid removal device limitation. Id. (citing
Kolesnychenko ¶ 64). According to the Examiner, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use this method in Lof’s
immersion system “in order to remove liquid through the drain
effectively.” Id. The Examiner adds that Kolesnychenko’s capillary
action system would also reduce stage disturbance. Ans. 25–26.
Figure 5 of Kolesnychenko is reproduced below.
Appeal 2018-004000
Application 13/187,055
10

Figure 5 of Kolesnychenko “illustrates, in cross-section, a barrier
according to a first embodiment of the invention.” Kolesnychenko
¶ 41. In Figure 5, substrate table WT is provided with “a drainage
ditch or barrier 40 surrounding an outer peripheral edge of the
substrate W.” Id. ¶ 59. “A barrier 100 surrounds the substrate W, the
drainage ditch 40 and the closing disk 22.” Id. ¶ 61. The barrier 100
“comprises a groove 110 which is recessed into the upper surface of
the substrate table WT.” Id. ¶ 62. “In an embodiment, the groove 100
is formed as a U-shape in cross-section and is sized such that capillary
forces act on liquid in the groove so that the liquid can be transported
to the outlet(s) 120 and removed from the substrate table WT.” Id.
¶ 64.
Appellant argues that that Kolesnychenko shows drainage ditch 40
located between a nearest edge of the table and an edge of an object, not
groove 100. Appeal Br. 16.
We agree with Appellant that because gap 40 is between substrate W
and Kolesnychenko’s passive liquid removal device including groove 100
and outlet 120, it is not clear how the groove 100 and outlet 120 “move
liquid which leaks through a gap between an edge of the object and a nearest
edge of the table to the edge of the object” as claimed. The Examiner does
not explain why or how a person of ordinary skill in the art would modify
Appeal 2018-004000
Application 13/187,055
11
the system of Lof such that the passive liquid removal device moves liquid
from the claimed location. See Final Act. 8 (not addressing the location of
the passive liquid removal device relative to the edge of the table or object);
Ans. (stating only that “there is no reason to prevent or discourage [a person
of] ordinary skill in the art to apply such teaching of capillary force, to
remove liquid through outlets of Lof’s immersion system at any particular
location on the substrate support . . . to avoid stage disturbance.”).
Accordingly, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 57 as obvious over the combination of Lof and Kolesnychenko.
Claims 58 and 59 depend from claims 57, and, therefore, their rejections
suffer from the same problems as the rejection of claim 57.
Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 57–59 as obvious
over Lof and Kolesnychenko.
Obviousness Over Lof, Kolesnychenko, and Nei
The Examiner rejected claims 60 and 61 as obvious over Lof,
Kolenychenko, and Nei. Final Act. 9. Claims 60 and 61 depend from claim
57. Claims 60 and 61 depend from claim 57 and, therefore, their rejections
suffer from the same problems as the rejection of claim 57. We, therefore,
reverse the rejection of claims 60 and 61 over Lof, Kolesnychenko, and Nei.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 21, 29, 33, 37,
45–53, and 55–61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2018-004000
Application 13/187,055
12
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
21, 29, 33, 37,
45–50, 53, 55,
56
103 Lof, Nei 21, 29, 33, 37,
45–50, 53, 55,
56
51, 52 103 Lof, Nei, Streefkerk 51, 52
57–59 103 Lof, Kolesnychenko 57–59
60, 61 103 Lof, Kolesnychenko,
Nei
60, 61
Overall
Outcome
21, 29, 33, 37,
45–53, 55–61

REVERSED