Cymer, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2021

2020002949 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2021)

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.
15/495,245 04/24/2017 Yingbo Zhao 2016P00239US/002-244001 6121
86823 7590 03/30/2021
ASML CIP (San Diego) / DMIPG
c/o ASML Netherlands B.V.
PO Box 324
Veldhoven, 5500 AH
NETHERLANDS
EXAMINER
HAGAN, SEAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2828
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2021 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):
contact@dmipgroup.com
docketing@dmipgroup.com
sarah.briggs@asml.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte YINGBO ZHAO and KEVIN O’BRIEN
____________

Appeal 2020-002949
Application 15/495,245
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.

SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–8, which are all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 This Decision refers to the Specification filed Apr. 24, 2017 (“Spec.”);
Final Office Action dated Sept. 27, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed
July 29, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer dated Jan. 10, 2020
(“Ans.”); and Reply Brief filed Mar. 10, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Cymer LLC as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-002949
Application 15/495,245

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to a system and method for laser light energy
control. Spec. ¶¶ 1, 4. Independent claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on
appeal and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief:
1. A method of laser light energy control comprising:
receiving, in a laser system controller, a first laser trigger
command and a voltage command;
converting, by the laser system controller, the voltage
command to a first energy target;
determining, by the laser system controller, a first laser
repetition rate based on a difference between the first laser trigger
command and a previous laser trigger command;
retrieving, by the laser system controller, a first repetition
rate gain estimator corresponding to the first laser repetition
rate;
determining, by the laser system controller, a first laser
voltage using the first energy target and the first repetition rate
gain estimator;
directing, by the laser system controller, a laser source to
fire using the first laser voltage;
receiving, in the laser system controller, a subsequent laser
trigger command and a subsequent voltage command;
converting, by the laser system controller, the subsequent
voltage command to a second energy target;
determining, by the laser system controller, a second laser
repetition rate based on a difference between the subsequent laser
trigger command and the first laser trigger command, wherein
the second laser repetition rate is different than the first laser
repetition rate;
Appeal 2020-002949
Application 15/495,245

3
retrieving, by the laser system controller, a second
repetition rate gain estimator corresponding to the second laser
repetition rate;
determining, by the laser system controller, a second
laser voltage using the second energy target and the second
repetition rate gain estimator; and,
directing, by the laser system controller, the laser source
to fire using the second laser voltage.
Appeal Br. 16 (key disputed claim language italicized and bolded).

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
Name Reference Date
Jacques
(“Jacques ’124”)
US 2010/0098124 A1 Apr. 22, 2010
Jacques et al.
(“Jacques ’889”)
US 8,102,889 B2 Jan. 24, 2012

REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains (Ans. 3) the following rejections:
1. Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
being anticipated by Jacques ’889 (“Rejection 1”). Final Act. 8.
2. Claims 2–4 and 6–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jacques ’889 in view of Jacques ’124 (“Rejection 2”).
Final Act. 11.
OPINION
Rejection 1
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 5 under § 102(a)(1) as anticipated
by Jacques ’889. Final Act. 8–11. Regarding the “first repetition rate gain
Appeal 2020-002949
Application 15/495,245

4
estimator” and “second repetition rate gain estimator” recitations of claim 1,
the Examiner relies on column 9 of Jacques ’889 for disclosing those
limitations. Id. at 9 (citing Jacques ’889, 9:3–5); Ans. 5–8 (citing Jacques
’889, 9:3–14, 9:17–25). The Examiner determines the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the term “gain estimator” is “a value useful for estimating
the gain of the laser.” Ans. 9.
Applying what the Examiner determines is the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the term “gain estimator,” the Examiner identifies the
“voltage lookup table” of Jacques ’889’s process as corresponding to and
disclosing the “first repetition rate gain estimator” and “second repetition
rate gain estimator” limitations of the claim. Ans. 5. In particular, the
Examiner finds that “the values of the voltage lookup table referred to in
lines 5 and 6 of column 9 of [Jacques ’889] correspond to the required
repetition rate gain estimators and that the use of these values corresponds to
the requirements relating to the use of the repetition rate gain estimators.” Id.
The Examiner further finds that
[t]his process is understood to apply to the repetition rate gain
estimator of the present claims because a gain estimator
represents a relationship between the voltage applied to the laser
and the resulting energy of the laser light and is used to determine
the final voltage value to be provided to the laser so as to achieve
a desired energy level output . . . whereas the voltage derived
from the lookup table in [Jacques ’889] is also used to provide a
modified voltage across a pair of electrodes to achieve a desired
laser output energy as described in lines 22 through 25 of column
9 and it is clear from [Jacques ’889] that the voltage necessary to
achieve a desired output energy is retrieved due to the particular
repetition rate associated with the interval between trigger
pulses. As such, it is determined that the retrieval of the voltage
from the voltage lookup table in [Jacques ’889] necessarily
Appeal 2020-002949
Application 15/495,245

5
represents the required retrieval of a repetition rate gain estimator
as required by the present claims.
Id. at 6. The Examiner also finds that the values of Jacques ’889’s voltage
lookup table correspond to the claimed repetition rate gain estimators
because they are employed in Jacques ’889’s process for the purpose of
causing the laser to provide a voltage across the electrodes of the laser that
produces a desired energy output.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 should be
reversed because Jacques ’889 does not disclose or suggest a “first repetition
rate gain estimator” or “second repetition rate gain estimator,” as claimed.
Appeal Br. 6–9; Reply Br. 2–5. In particular, Appellant contends the
Examiner’s rejection is erroneous because the Examiner’s interpretation of
the term “gain estimator” to mean “a value useful for estimating the gain of
the laser” is unreasonably broad and one of ordinary skill in the art would
not have understood Jacques ’889’s disclosure at column 9 regarding a
voltage lookup table as disclosing or suggesting the “first repetition rate gain
estimator” and “second repetition rate gain estimator” limitations of the
claim. Appeal Br. 7–9. See also Reply Br. 3–4 (stating the “fact that both the
gain estimator and the voltage from the lookup table may have an effect on
the voltage applied to the laser does not make them the same” and a “voltage
is not the same as a gain estimator (dv/de) in general and nothing in [Jacques
’889] suggests otherwise”).
Appellant’s argument is persuasive because, on this appeal record, the
Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that
Jacques ’889 discloses a “first repetition rate gain estimator” and “second
repetition rate gain estimator,” as recited in the claim. See In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden,
Appeal 2020-002949
Application 15/495,245

6
on review of the prior art . . . of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability.”).
During prosecution, claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech.
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The words used in a claim must
be read in light of the specification, as they would have been interpreted by
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Id; see also In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054–55 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that during
prosecution claim terms are given “the broadest reasonable meaning of the
words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way
of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description
contained in the applicant’s specification.”).
“The correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the specification is not whether the specification
proscribes or precludes some broad reading of the claim term adopted by the
examiner.” In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Nor is it simply an interpretation that is not inconsistent with the
specification. Id. It is an interpretation that corresponds with what and how
the inventor describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an
interpretation that is consistent with the specification. Id.
Regarding the “first repetition rate gain estimator” and “second
repetition rate gain estimator” terms of claim 1, the Specification discloses:
As is known in the art, there is a relationship between the amount
of voltage applied to laser source 120, as specified by controller
130 via communication 125, and the resulting energy in the
generated laser light. This relationship is commonly represented
as dv/de, which is the derivative of voltage with respect to
Appeal 2020-002949
Application 15/495,245

7
energy. . . . It is known in the art to use what is called a gain
estimator, an algorithm for estimating the dv/de relationship. As
stated above, there is a relationship between the amount of
voltage applied to laser source 120 and the resulting energy in
the generated laser light. In general, the greater the applied
voltage the greater the resulting energy. However, this
relationship is affected by noise and other disturbances in the
laser system. As such, rather than simply presuming a given
voltage will always result in the same energy, a gain estimator
algorithm is created by varying (or dithering, i.e., dv) the voltage
locally and then using the corresponding response in energy (i.e.,
de) to compute de/dv as an output. This de/dv, which is the output
of the gain estimator, is then used to compute the final voltage
value that the laser system then uses to generate the laser light at
the desired energy level.
Spec. ¶ 15.
The Specification further provides that according to the claimed
method, whenever the laser system is asked to fire the laser with a differing
timing trigger interval, i.e., at a differing repetition rate, a gain estimator to
be operable at that repetition rate can be used without waiting for
convergence to the new de/dv. Id. ¶ 18.
When read in light of the Specification’s disclosure, we are not
persuaded the Examiner’s interpretation of the terms “first repetition rate
gain estimator” and “second repetition rate gain estimator” to encompass
Jacques ’889’s voltage lookup table is consistent with the term’s broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification. Rather, we agree with
Appellant that the Examiner’s interpretation is unreasonably broad and does
not necessarily comport with the way the term is used in the Specification.
In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that even
under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a claim construction “cannot be
divorced from the specification and the record evidence”).
Appeal 2020-002949
Application 15/495,245

8
In contrast to the Examiner’s interpretation, based on the description
in the Specification, we construe the broadest reasonable interpretation of
the first and second repetition rate gain estimator terms to mean algorithms
for estimating the dv/de relationship based on differing repetition rates. We
do not find sufficient support in the claims or Specification for the
Examiner’s broader interpretation of the terms as meaning simply a value
useful for estimating the gain of the laser and thus, encompassing Jacques
’889’s voltage lookup table. Rather, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner has not explained with sufficient clarity how or why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood Jacques ’889’s voltage
lookup table as disclosing or necessarily corresponding to those limitations.
As Appellant points out (Reply Br. 2–3), although Jacques ’889
discusses that “device manager 62 may use the period between triggers to
lookup a voltage from the voltage lookup table” (Jacques ’889, 9:3–6), the
reference does not disclose or suggest that the values of the voltage lookup
table are repetition rate gain estimators or otherwise adequately explain how
they correspond or relate to the use of algorithms for estimating the dv/de
relationship based on differing repetition rates. Indeed, as Appellant further
points out (Reply Br. 4), the fact that the first and second repetition rate gain
estimators of claim 1 and the voltage values from the voltage lookup table of
Jacques ’889’s process may have an effect on the voltage applied to the laser
does not mean they are necessarily the same things or that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have reasonably understood them as such.
The Examiner’s comments at pages 4–10 of the Answer and pages
8–9 of the Final Office Action are not persuasive because the Examiner does
not meaningfully address Appellant’s principal argument that one of
Appeal 2020-002949
Application 15/495,245

9
ordinary skill in the art would not have reasonably understood Jacques
’889’s teachings regarding a voltage lookup table as disclosing or
corresponding to the “first repetition rate gain estimator” and “second
repetition rate gain estimator” recitations of claim 1 properly construed. In
re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (noting the
broadest reasonable interpretation “does not give the PTO an unfettered
license to interpret claims to embrace anything remotely related to the
claimed invention”).
Thus, on this appeal record, we are not persuaded that the portions of
column 9 of Jacques ’889 the Examiner cites discloses the “first repetition
rate gain estimator” and “second repetition rate gain estimator” limitations
of the claim.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
anticipated by Jacques ’889. Because claim 5 depends from claim 1, we also
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim for the same reason as
claim 1.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Jacques ’889.

Rejection 2
The Examiner rejects claims 2–4 and 6–8 under § 103 as obvious over
Jacques ’889 and Jacques ’124. Final Act. 11–15. Because claims 2–4
depend from claim 1 and claims 6–8 depend from claim 5 and the foregoing
deficiencies in the Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding the
Jacques ’889 reference are not remedied by the Examiner’s findings
regarding the additional reference or combination of references, for
Appeal 2020-002949
Application 15/495,245

10
principally the same reasons we discuss above for Rejection 1, we reverse
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–4 and 6–8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Jacques ’889 and Jacques ’124.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5 102(a)(1) Jacques ’889 1, 5
2–4, 6–8 103 Jacques ’889,
Jacques ’124
2–4, 6–8
Overall
Outcome
1–8

REVERSED