Ex Parte Branz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 15, 2018

11718675 (P.T.A.B. May. 15, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
11/718,675 02/28/2008 Karsten Branz
30996 7590 05/17/2018
ROBERT BECKER IP LAW
P.O. BOX 1198
PAGOSA SPRINGS, CO 81147
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.
18238.850 9017
EXAMINER
WHATLEY, KATELYNB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1714
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/17/2018 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):
mail@ip-rbecker.com
rcenteno@ip-rbecker.com
rbecker@ip-rbecker.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KARSTEN BRANZ, PETER DRESS, MICHAEL
SOW A, and THOMAS GAIRING
Appeal2017-007758
Application 11/718,675 1
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and BRIAN
D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
SUMMARY
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 53-57, 60-72, 75, 97, and 98. We have
jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Suss Microtek
Photomask Equipment BmbH & Co., KG. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-007758
Application 11/718,675
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Appellants describe the invention as relating to a method and device
for treating substrates in the semiconductor field using a liquid in
combination with ultrasound and megasound. Spec. 1 :4--8. Claim 53,
reproduced below with formatting added and emphasis added to certain key
recitations, is the only independent claim on appeal and is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
5 3. A development process in a masking process of a substrate
including the steps of:
developing a resist or coating layer on the surface of the
substrate by forming a liquid film containing a developer, on
local surface areas of the substrate to be treated, by means of a
nozzle unit comprised of:
at least one elongated nozzle arrangement, and
an ultrasonic or megasonic transducer arrangement
disposed adjacent to the at least one elongated nozzle
arrangement,
wherein said transducer arrangement is composed of a
plurality of transducers;
bringing at least a portion of said transducer arrangement
into contact with the liquid film; and
introducing ultrasound or megasound into the liquid film
via said transducer arrangement by exciting said transducers
individually and/or in groups with different intensities
and/or frequencies, wherein said introducing step comprises
varying introduction of ultrasound or megasound into the liquid
film during developing to achieve a differing developing effect
at different locations of the local surface areas of the substrate,
and
wherein the introduction of ultrasound or megasound is
varied as a function of a position of said nozzle unit over the
2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action dated April 7, 2016
("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed October 27, 2016 ("Appeal Br."), and
the Examiner's Answer dated February 9, 2017 ("Ans.").
2
Appeal2017-007758
Application 11/718,675
substrate to provide the differing developing effect at the
different locations.
Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.) (formatting and emphasis added).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Buker et al. ("Buker")
Weber et al. ("Weber")
Mitsumori et al. ("Mitsumori")
Fisch et al. ("Fisch")
T etsuka et al. ("T etsuka")
Izumi et al. ("Izumi")
Seto
us 5,980,647
us 5,992,431
US 6,230,722 B 1
US 6,276,370 Bl
US 2002/0185164 Al
US 2004/0087158 Al
JP 10-303161
REJECTIONS
Nov. 9, 1999
Nov. 30, 1999
May 15, 2001
Aug. 21, 2001
Dec. 12, 2002
May 6, 2004
Apr. 23, 1997
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
Rejection 1. Claims 71, 72, and 97 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as
indefinite. Final Act. 6.
Rejection 2. Claims 53-55, 60, 63---65, 67, 69, 70, and 98 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mitsumori in view of Fisch. Id. at 7.
Rejection 3. Claims 56 and 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Mitsumori in view of Fisch and further in view of Buker. Id. at 11.
Rejection 4. Claims 61 and 62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Mitsumori in view of Fisch and further in view of Weber. Id. at 12.
Rejection 5. Claim 66 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Mitsumori in view of Fisch and further in view of Izumi. Id. at 13.
3
Appeal2017-007758
Application 11/718,675
Rejection 6. Claim 68 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Mitsumori in view of Fisch and Izumi and further in view of Weber. Id. at
14.
Rejection 7. Claims 71, 72, and 97 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Mitsumori in view of Fisch and further in view of
Tetsuka. Id. at 15.
Rejection 8. Claim 75 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Mitsumori in view of Fisch and further in view of Seto. Id. at 17.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential),
cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[I]t
has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify the
alleged error in the examiner's rejections.")). After considering the evidence
presented in this Appeal and each of Appellants' arguments, we are not
persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error. Thus, we affirm the
Examiner's rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action
and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants argue all rejections together other than arguing claim 60
separately. See Appeal Br. 5-8. Therefore, consistent with the provisions of
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013), we limit our discussion to claims 53 and
60, and all other claims on appeal stand or fall together with claim 53.
4
Appeal2017-007758
Application 11/718,675
Indefiniteness. The Examiner rejects claims 71, 72, and 97 3 under 35
U.S.C. § 112 as indefinite. Final Act. 6. Appellants does not respond in
their Appeal Brief. Ans. 13. We therefore summarily affirm the rejection.
Obviousness, Claim 53. The Examiner rejects claim 53 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mitsumori in view of Fisch. Final Act. 7.
The Examiner finds, for example, that Mitsumori teaches a development
process for masking a substrate that develops a resist or coating layer by
forming a liquid film and by making use of a nozzle unit having an
ultrasonic tranducer arrangement. Final Act. 7-8 ( citing Mitsumori). One
embodiment of Mitsumori' s nozzle arrangement is depicted in its Figure
23A which is reproduced below.
104
(304> 106a
(308a)
FIG. 23A
114 /
(314) (
106b 106c
(306b) (306c)
101
Figure 23A is a sectional side view of an embodiment of Mitsumori.
Mitsumori 11 :41--42. Mitsumori explains that, in this figure, "[i]ndependent
ultrasonic elements 116a, 116b, and 116c may be provided in the
compartments, respectively, and by appropriately selecting a frequency and
3 Claims 72 and 97 depend from claim 71.
5
Appeal2017-007758
Application 11/718,675
a power for each compartment, it is possible to carry out a treatment suitable
for each surface portion of the object to be wet-treated." Id. at 28:56-60.
The Examiner finds that "MITSUMORI does not explicitly teach the
introduction of ultrasound is varied as a function of a position of said nozzle
unit over the substrate to provide the differing treatment effect at the
different locations as instantly claimed." Final Act. 8. The Examiner finds,
however, that Fisch teaches the benefits of such an arrangement. Id. ( citing
Fisch). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify
Mitsumori:
to include the varying the ultrasound to achieve different
surface effects and the adjusting of the multiple transducers as a
result of the position of the transducer over the substrate, as
taught by FISCH, to provide a more dynamic and controlled
treatment of substrates and ensure that the entire substrate is
treated with the desired energy.
Id. at 9.
Appellants argue that Mitsumori only provides examples relating to
cleaning a substrate and does not teach the use of sonic energy in a
development treatment. Appeal Br. 5---6. The preponderance of the
evidence does not support Appellants' position. Rather, as the Examiner
explains, Mitsumori teaches that its process may be used for cleaning or for
development. Ans. 14--15; Mitsumori 7:37--45 (explaining that Mitsumori
apparatus is applicable for "developing and stripping of resist"), 18:24--29
( explaining use of apparatus with "a developing solution"). Mitsumori
explains that its examples are only exemplary. Id. at 18:64--67; see also In
re Lamberti, 545 F .2d 7 4 7, 7 50 (CCP A 197 6) ("all disclosures of the prior
art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered").
6
Appeal2017-007758
Application 11/718,675
Appellants also argue that Mitsumori does not teach transducers
whose intensity or frequencies are different from one another. Appeal Br. 6.
Appellants and the Examiner do not agree on whether or not claim 53
requires such a limitation. See, e.g., Ans. 15-16. We need not resolve this
claim construction dispute to address Appellants' argument before us
because, even under Appellants' proffered claim construction, the
preponderance of the evidence, as explained above, establishes that
Mitsumori teaches transducers whose intensity and frequencies are different
from each other. See also Ans. 16-17.
Appellants also argue that Fisch does not relate to a development
process and there is no reason to combine the cited art for use in a
development process. Appeal Br. 7. As explained above, however,
Mitsumori teaches use of its apparatus in a development process. Appellants
do not rebut the Examiner's stated rationale as to why it would have been
obvious to combine the teachings of Fisch with Mitsumori to gain the
advantages of Fisch in a development process. Ans. 17-24. Based on the
rationale explained by the Examiner, the obviousness rejection is well-
founded because the teachings of Fisch would have been expected to
improve the process of Mitsumori in the same manner the teachings improve
the process of Fisch. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,417
(2007).
Because Appellants' arguments do not identify harmful error, we
sustain the Examiner's rejections.
Obviousness, Claim 60. Claim 60 recites "[a] method according to
claim 53, wherein an intensity and/or frequency of the ultrasound or
megasound introduced into the liquid film is varied in at least a portion of
7
Appeal2017-007758
Application 11/718,675
said tranducer arrangement." Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.). Appellants
present substantively the same argument for this claim as for claim 1.
Appeal Br. 8. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 60
for the reasons explained above. See also Ans. 24--25.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of
claims 53-57, 60-72, 75, 97, and 98.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
8