Ex Parte Brown et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 12, 2016

11982217 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111982,217 10/31/2007
86823 7590 02/17/2016
Cymer IP Department
c/o ASML Netherlands B.V.
PO Box 324
V eldhoven, 5500 AH
NETHERLANDS
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Daniel J.W. Brown
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.
002-013001/2005-0104-02 9332
EXAMINER
CARTER, MICHAEL W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2828
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/17/2016 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
patti. preddy@asml.com
docketing@dmipgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL J.W. BROWN, WILLIAM N. PARTLO, and
RICHARD L. SANDSTROM
Appeal2014--002083
Application 11/982,217
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 21, 22, 25-39, 42, and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over at least the basic combination of Kitatochi et al. (US
6,741,627 B2, issued May 25, 2004; hereinafter "Kitatochi"), Das et al. (US
Pre-Grant Publication 2004/0182838 Al, published Sept. 23, 2004;
1 The Real Party in Interest is stated to be Cymer, LLC through a merger of
Cymer, Inc. and Kona Technologies, LLC. (App. Br. 1).
Appeal2014--002083
Application 11/982,217
hereinafter "Das"), and Govorkov et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication
2006/0007978 Al, published Jan. 12, 2006; hereinafter "Govorkov").2
We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
WE AFFIRM.
Claim 21, the sole independent claim, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter (emphasis added):
21. An apparatus comprising:
a plurality of pulsed laser beam sources each operating at a rate of X
kHz and each comprising:
a pulsed seed laser configured to produce a seed laser beam of seed
pulses at the rate of X kHz; and
an amplifier gain system comprising a pulsed gas discharge amplifier
gain medium that is in a closed-loop regenerative ring configuration,
wherein the amplifier gain system is configured to operate on the seed laser
beam from the pulsed seed laser; and
a beam combining system configured to combine the output pulses
from at least two of the pulsed laser beam sources to produce an output laser
pulse beam at a pulse repetition rate of 2_X kHz.
Appellants' arguments focus on the limitations of claim 21 (App. Br.
2-8; Reply Br. 1--4). Appellants also state that the claim limitations of
dependent claims 27 and 38 are not disclosed by the cited prior art and that
2 Additional prior art, i.e., Hackel (US 5,239,408, issued Aug. 24, 1993),
was applied against dependent claims 42 and 43, but is not substantively
argued in the Appeal brief; see App. Br. 9-10. While Appellants present
arguments for the first time in the Reply Brief with respect to Hackel, it is
inappropriate for Appellants to discuss for the first time in the Reply Brief
matters that could have been raised in the Appeal Brief. 3 7 C.F .R. §
41.41 (b )(2)(2013).
2
Appeal2014--002083
Application 11/982,217
the additional reference used in the rejection of claims 42 and 43 does not
cure the deficiencies of the references cited to reject claim 21 (id. at 9-10).
ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellants contentions, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner's conclusion that the subject matter of Appellants'
claims is unpatentable over the applied prior art. We sustain the Examiner's
§ 103 rejections essentially for the reasons set out by the Examiner in the
Answer.
We add the following for emphasis.
Appellants' arguments regarding claim 21 focus solely on the alleged
deficiencies of the combination of Kitatochi and Das (App. Br. 3-8; Reply
Br. 1--4).
It is proper in evaluating references to take into account not only the
specific teachings of the references but also the inferences which one skilled
in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401
F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425-26
( CCP A 19 81) ("The test for obviousness ... is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the
art."); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references.").
Appellants acknowledge that Kitatochi discloses a two-stage laser
system with a single oscillation stage laser that operates in a pulsed manner
(App. Br. at 3--4; Reply Br. 2-3). Because Kitatochi does not disclose a
3
Appeal2014--002083
Application 11/982,217
plurality of the two-stage laser systems or a beam combining system that
combines the output pulses from at least two of the laser sources, the
Examiner cited Das and its two power oscillators in Figure 2A for disclosing
a plurality of pulsed laser beam sources that are then combined (id. at 4--8).
According to Appellants, Das merely discloses one two-stage laser system
and does not suggest a plurality of laser systems with a beam combining
system (id.). Appellants' state:
To reiterate, the only beam combining that Das describes
is to combine the beam from the power oscillator 100 with the
beam from the power oscillator 100' (in Fig. 2A) with the
mirror 110. However, in both cases, the beam combining is not
between two sources, with each source including both a seed
laser and an amplifier gain system.
For completeness, appellant points out that Das' POPA
system, which is described in Fig. IA, also does not describe a
plurality of sources, with each source including both a pulsed
seed laser and an amplifier gain system. Das describes no more
than Kitatochi in this regard, in that Das merely describes a
two-stage system in which the output from the PO is fed into
the PA (as in Fig. IA of Das).
(Id. at 7).
Appellants also contend that Das teaches away from combining the
output of two laser beam sources because Das explains that combining two
lasers with a beam homogenizer increases costs through consumables and
maintenance, in addition to increasing the complexity of the system (id. at 8;
Reply Br. 2--4). According to Appellants, one having ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention, in view of Das, would have been motivated
to merely increase the pulse repetition rate of the single laser source rather
than duplicate the two-stage laser systems (id.).
4
Appeal2014--002083
Application 11/982,217
Finally, Appellants state that the combination of the cited references
does not disclose the claim limitations of claims 27 and 38 (App. Br. 9).
These arguments fail to point out reversible error in the Examiner's
rejection.
First, Appellants apparently misconstrue the Examiner's reliance upon
Das. The Examiner points out that Das is not used to teach a plurality of
two-stage laser sources; instead, the Examiner cites Das to teach a laser
configuration that includes a plurality of laser sources that are combined to
increase the pulse repetition rate and allow separate power levels for the
pulses from the plurality of laser sources (Ans. 2-5). The Examiner explains
that claim 21 does not require two of the systems shown in Das' s Figure 2A
(id. at 4--5). The Examiner aptly points out that Das is merely relied upon to
teach combining two laser sources, and not the details of those sources
because Kitatochi is relied upon for the details of the two-stage laser
sources, including the seed laser and amplifier gain system (id. at 6-7).
As the Supreme Court set forth in KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., "[t ]he
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." 550 US 398,
416 (2007). "A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421. Based on this, Appellants'
arguments that the applied prior art fails to render obvious the claimed
invention are unavailing, and a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner's position that the claimed subject matter would have been prima
facie obvious.
In response to Appellants' argument that Das teaches away from a
system that combines the output from two laser sources, the Examiner states
5
Appeal2014--002083
Application 11/982,217
that the beam homogenizer, along with its associated costs and maintenance,
is directed to the prior art discussed in Das (Ans. at 7-8). Furthermore, "[a]
reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon
reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out
in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that
was taken by the applicant." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir.
1994 ). "The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another
benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the
disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the
benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another."
Winner Int'! Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n. 8 (Fed. Cir.
2000).
As the Examiner points out, contrary to Appellants' argument, the
added costs of a beam homogenizer does not apply to the proposed
combination of Kitatochi and Das (Ans. 7, 8).
Moreover, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's
determination that one of ordinary skill in the art, using no more than
ordinary creativity, would have modified Kitatochi so as to combine the
outputs from a plurality of laser sources, as taught by Das, in order to
increase the pulse repetition rate and allow separate power levels for the
pulses from the two laser sources (e.g., Ans. 8). One of ordinary skill in the
art would have readily appreciated that the costs and maintenance associated
with combining multiple laser sources (even assuming that a beam
homogenizer is needed as argued by Appellants) may be outweighed by the
advantages of combining laser beams (id.).
6
Appeal2014--002083
Application 11/982,217
Finally, in response to Appellants' contention that the limitations of
claims 27 and 38 are not taught by the cited prior art, a preponderance of the
evidence supports the Examiner's position that the relied upon portions of
the prior art references teach or suggest these claim limitations (see Ans. at
8-10).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejections on appeal.
The Examiner's decision 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).
cdc
ORDER
AFFIRMED
7