Cymer, LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 30, 20212020002949 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2021) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation