Ex Parte Chang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2012

11828809 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte CHING-YU CHANG
________________

Appeal 2011-009158
Application 11/828,809
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before FRED E. MCKELVEY, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, and 16 of
Application 11/828,809 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated, and/or
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious.1 Appellant seeks reversal of these
rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 After receipt of the Final Rejection, Appellant cancelled claims 7, 14, and
17-20, which mooted rejections of claims 7 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
¶ 2 as indefinite and of claims 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious.
Amendment 5 (Nov. 22, 2010); Advisory Action 2 (Nov. 30, 2010).
Appeal 2011-009158
Application 11/828,809

2
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.

BACKGROUND
The ’809 application describes an immersion lithography resist
material that comprises a matrix polymer and an additive that has a polarity
that is greater than the polarity of the matrix polymer. Spec. 20-21. The
matrix polymer and the additive are combined in a manner such that when
the lithography resist is applied to a substrate, the additive is said to float to
a top surface of the resist material. Id. at 20, 23.
According to the Specification, the claimed composition can be used
as a lithography resist material that will produce fewer watermark defects in
the finished photoresist pattern. After the lithography resist material is
applied to the substrate, the resist layer is exposed to transfer the desired
pattern to the substrate. Id. at 5. Following exposure, the unexposed resist
layer is removed through treatment with a developer rinse fluid. Id. at 5-6.
Following the developing step, the substrate is rinsed with deionized water
(“DI water”) to remove residual developer rinse and unexposed resist
material. Id. at 6. The substrate is then spun or subjected to some other
drying process to remove the DI water droplets. Id. Watermark defects are
said to be created when residual DI water droplets that contain developer
rinse, unexposed resist material, and other chemicals remain on the substrate
surface and are allowed to evaporate. Id. at 6-7.
The ’809 application describes a lithography resist material that is
purported to reduce the incidence of these defects by decreasing the ability
of the DI water rinse to penetrate or to form hydrogen bonds with the resist
polymer matrix. Id. at 19. The resist material is a combination of a matrix
Appeal 2011-009158
Application 11/828,809

3
polymer and a fluoride surfactant. Id. When the resist material is applied to
the substrate, the fluoride surfactant is said to float to the top surface of the
polymer matrix. Id. There, the fluorocarbon ends of the surfactant are said to
be extruded to the surface, while the polar ends remain buried in the polymer
matrix. Id. The resulting hydrophobic fluorocarbon surface of the polymer
matrix reduces DI water interaction with and penetration into the polymer
matrix. Id. DI water droplets are therefore said to be more effectively
removed from the polymer matrix’s surface. Id. at 19-20, Fig 3.
Claim 1 of the ’809 application is representative and is reproduced
below:
1. An immersion lithography resist material, comprising:
a matrix polymer having a first polarity; and
an additive having a second polarity, wherein the second
polarity is substantially greater than the first polarity;
wherein the matrix polymer and the additive are combined such
that when the immersion lithography resist material is applied
to a substrate, the additive floats to a top surface of the
immersion lithography resist material.
App. Br. 6.

REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner finally rejected claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,818,148 B1
(“Watanabe,” issued Nov. 16, 2004) as evidenced by U.S. Patent
Application Publication No. 2005/0106498 A1 (“Cao,” May 19,
2005) and U.S. Patent No. 4,123,931 (“Blaser,” issued Nov. 7,
1978).
Appeal 2011-009158
Application 11/828,809

4
2. The Examiner finally rejected claims 1, 4-6, 10, and 13 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over U.S. Patent Application
Publication No. 2008/0166667 A1 (“Goldfarb,” July 10, 2008) as
evidenced by U.S. Patent No. 6,653,415 B1 (“Böttcher,” issued
Nov. 25, 2003), U.S. Patent No. 4,554,237 (“Kataoka,” issued
Nov. 19, 1985), and U.S. Patent No. 6,770,404 B1 (“Wheland,”
issued Aug. 3, 2004).

DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, and 16 were rejected as anticipated
by Watanabe as evidenced by Cao and Blaser. Appellant only specifically
argues for patentability of claim 1. App. Br. 3-4. Claim 10 is argued to be
patentable because it “includes limitations similar to those of claim 1.” Id. at
4. Dependent claims 2-6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, and 16 stand or fall with the
independent claims from which they depend. Id. Therefore, we confine our
discussion to claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Watanabe describes a lithography resist material comprising a
polyhydroxystyrene with partially-protected hydroxyl groups and surfactant
FC-430. Ans. 3-4 (citing Watanabe col. 6, ll. 15-17, Table 1, and Table 7).
The Examiner cited Cao as evidence in support of the finding that the
partially-protected polyhydroxystyrene polymer is an essentially non-polar
material. Id. at 4 (citing Cao ¶ [0011]). The Examiner further cited Blaser as
describing the structure of FC-430, which is a polymeric surfactant. Id.
(citing Blaser col. 7, ll. 18-34). Next, the Examiner found that the ethylene
oxide and propylene oxide monomers present in FC-430 are polar, with a
Appeal 2011-009158
Application 11/828,809

5
polarity higher than that of the partially-protected polyhydroxystyrene
polymer. Id.
Appellant challenges this rejection, arguing that Watanabe does not
describe the recited claim limitation that the additive—the FC-430 in this
rejection—floats to a top surface of the polymer matrix. App. Br. 3-4. The
Examiner found that Appellant’s Specification describes a genus of
surfactants that includes FC-430 as useful in Appellant’s composition of
matter. Ans. 5 (citing Spec. at ¶ [0078]). The Examiner further found that
Appellant’s specification does not describe the claimed “matrix polymer”
with any specificity. Id. at 10. The Examiner states that “[a]bsent a record to
the contrary, it is the [E]xaminer’s position that the . . . non-ionic surfactant
FC-430 of Watanabe et al. will float to the top surface of the resist material.”
Id. at 5.
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by
Watanabe for the following reasons. The ’809 application’s claims are
directed to compositions of matter. Appellant does not dispute that
Watanabe describes the claimed composition of matter, which is a
combination of a matrix polymer with a first polarity and an additive with a
second, substantially higher, polarity.2 Here, Appellant is relying on the
allegedly novel property of the claimed composition—that the additive will
float to a top surface of the polymer matrix when the composition of matter
is used as an immersion lithography resist material—to distinguish the
claimed invention from the prior art. It is axiomatic that discovery of a new

2 We pause to note that claim 1 appears to be very broad. Because we affirm
the Examiner’s prior art rejections, we need not consider at this time whether
the full scope of each of the ’809 application’s the claims are both supported
and enabled by the written description.
Appeal 2011-009158
Application 11/828,809

6
use or property of a known composition cannot impart patentability to
claims to the known composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir.
1990).
The Examiner found that the matrix polymer/additive mixture
described in Watanabe has the claimed property, i.e., that the additive floats
to the top of the polymer matrix when the composition of matter is used as
an immersion lithography resist. The Examiner’s finding is supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. As previously noted, the claimed
composition is identical to the composition disclosed in Watanabe.
Therefore, the Examiner is entitled to presume that the two compositions
have identical properties, see In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327 (Fed. Cir.
1986), especially since the additive belongs to a genus that Appellant
discloses as useful creating the claimed compositions of matter. Where, as in
this case, there is an apparent identity of the claimed composition with the
prior art, the inventor may be required to provide some basis for
distinguishing the claimed invention from the prior art. Spada, 911 F.2d at
709.
Rejection 2. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4-6, 10, and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Goldfarb as evidenced by Böttcher,
Kataoka, and Wheland. Ans. 6-8. Appellant only specifically argues for
patentability of claim 1. App. Br. 4. Claim 10 is argued to be patentable
because it “includes limitations similar to those of claim 1.” Id. Dependent
claims 4-6 and 13 stand or fall with the independent claims from which they
depend. Id. Therefore, we confine our discussion to claim 1. For the
following reasons, we sustain this rejection.
Appeal 2011-009158
Application 11/828,809

7
The Examiner found that Goldfarb describes a hydrophobic polymer
material that is a combination of a fluorinated polymeric resin and a
fluorinated solvent. Ans. at 7. Following Goldfarb’s description, the
Examiner combines poly(tetrafuoroethylene) with perfluorotributyl amine.
Id. (citing Goldfarb ¶ [0021]). The Examiner cites Böttcher and Kataoka,
respectively, as evidence in support of the findings that
poly(tetrafluorethylene) is a nonpolar resin and that perfluorotributyl amine
is a polar solvent. Id.
Appellant argues that the cited references provide no support for the
Examiner’s finding that the cited references teach or suggest that the
perfluorobutyl amine will float to a top surface of the polymer matrix. App.
Br. 4. In response, the Examiner cites Appellant’s Specification as
supporting his finding that this limitation is an inherent property of the
materials described in the references. Ans. 8 (citing Spec. ¶¶ [0073], [0078]).
The Examiner states that “[a]bsent a record to the contrary, it is the
[E]xaminer’s position that the perfluorotributyl amine . . . of Goldfarb will
float to the top surface of the hydrophobic material (MPEP 2112).” Id.
The Examiner’s finding that Goldfarb describes or suggests a
composition of matter that has the recited property is supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. Goldfarb reveals that perfluorotributyl amine
is available from 3M under the trade name FC43. Goldfarb ¶¶ [0021],
[0022]. Appellant’s Specification identifies 3M Fluorinert™ FC-43 as one
of the fluorinated surfactants that can be used in Appellant’s invention. Spec.
¶ [0078]. As discussed in connection with Rejection 1, supra, Appellant’s
Specification is silent as to the identity of the matrix polymer. Because the
prior art describes the use of a perfluorotributyl amine which Appellant says
Appeal 2011-009158
Application 11/828,809

8
will function in a particular manner, the Examiner’s finding that the
composition of matter described in Goldfarb has the claimed property is
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, and 16 as anticipated by Watanabe. We also sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4-6, 10, and 13 as obvious over Goldfarb.
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

cam