10610002 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 29, 2008)

Ex Parte Farrow et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 29, 2008

10610002 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 29, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte REGINALD C. FARROW and WARREN K. WASKIEWICZ _____________ Appeal 2008-2842 Application 10/610,002 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Decided: September 29, 2008 ____________ Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges. ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2008-2842 Application 10/610,002 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3-12, 14-15, 17-19, and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to fabricating a substrate such as a semiconductor wafer wherein the substrate is exposed to a primary mask having a plurality of desired circuit patterns surrounded by one or more exclusion regions, and a secondary mask having a pattern corresponding to the one or more exclusion regions (Spec. 3:9-15). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method for manufacturing a substrate having a plurality of circuit patterns, said method comprising the steps of: exposing a substrate to a primary mask having a plurality of circuit patterns to be printed, wherein said plurality of circuit patterns are surrounded by one or more exclusion regions; and exposing said substrate to a secondary mask, wherein said secondary mask has a pattern that satisfies at least one design rule for a subsequent process, wherein said secondary mask pattern corresponds to said exclusion regions. Appeal 2008-2842 Application 10/610,002 3 THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Wong US 6,211,050 B1 Apr. 03, 2001 Smith US 2003/0229875 A1 Dec. 11, 2003 (filed Jun. 07, 2002) Amemiya EP 1 045 288 A2 Oct. 18, 2000 The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10, 12, 14-15, 17, 19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Amemiya. 2. Claims 5-6, 9, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Amemiya in view of Smith. 3. Claims 11 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Amemiya in view of Wong. ANTICIPATION There is a single anticipation issue before us regarding whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10, 12, 14-15, 17, 19, and 21 as being anticipated by Amemiya. The issue is whether Amemiya teaches a secondary mask pattern that corresponds to the exclusion regions of the primary mask as claimed. FINDINGS OF FACT The relevant facts include the following: Appeal 2008-2842 Application 10/610,002 4 1. Amemiya teaches that a fine pattern has a predetermined periodic structure (col. 5, ll. 48-51). 2. Amemiya further teaches that these periodic fine patterns include a line-and- space pattern (i.e., Fig. 3A), a checker board type pattern (i.e., Fig. 3B), or a grating-like pattern (Fig. 3C) (col. 5, ll. 52-57). 3. Amemiya further teaches that a rough pattern may be an L-shaped pattern (i.e., Fig. 3D) or may be divided into a longitudinal window and a lateral window (i.e., Figs. 3E and 3F) (col. 6, ll. 11-18). PRINCIPLES OF LAW “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. Inc., v. Union Oil Co. of Calif., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Analysis of whether a claim is patentable over the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 begins with a determination of the scope of the claim. We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). If the prior art reference does not expressly set forth a particular element of the claim, that reference still may anticipate if that element is “inherent” in its disclosure. To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence “must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is Appeal 2008-2842 Application 10/610,002 5 necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill.” “Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted). ANALYSIS Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10, 12, 14-15, 17, 19, and 21 Did the Examiner err in determining that Amemiya teaches that the secondary mask pattern corresponds to the exclusion regions of the primary mask as claimed? Appellants argue that Amemiya does not teach that the secondary mask pattern corresponds to the exclusion regions of the primary mask as claimed (App. Br. 4). The Examiner responds that Amemiya teaches a first master mask that is exposed for a fine pattern and a corresponding secondary mask exposed for a related rough pattern to be formed (Ans. 7). The Examiner further states that both the first and second masks have periodic structures (i.e., patterns) that inherently include exposed areas and unexposed areas (i.e., exclusion regions) (Ans. 7). Amemiya teaches that a fine pattern has a predetermined periodic structure (Finding of Fact 1). Amemiya further teaches that these periodic fine patterns include a line-and-space pattern (i.e., Fig. 3A), a checker board type pattern (i.e., Fig. 3B), or a grating-like pattern (Fig. 3C) (Finding of Fact 2). Amemiya further Appeal 2008-2842 Application 10/610,002 6 teaches that the rough pattern may be an L-shaped pattern (i.e., Fig. 3D) or may be divided into a longitudinal window and a lateral window (i.e., Figs. 3E and 3F) (Finding of Fact 3). Thus, contrary to the Examiner’s assertion, the rough patterns (i.e., secondary mask) are not periodic. Furthermore, while both patterns have exposed areas and unexposed areas (i.e., exclusion regions), Amemiya still does not teach that the secondary mask pattern (i.e., rough pattern) corresponds to the exclusion regions (i.e., unexposed regions) of the primary mask (i.e., fine pattern) as claimed (Findings of Fact 1-3). Thus, Appellants’ argument has persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10, 12, 14-15, 17, 19, and 21 as being anticipated by Amemiya. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection. OBVIOUSNESS ANALYSIS The rejections of claims 5-6, 9, 11, 16, and 18 depend on the combination of Amemiya with Smith and Wong, and neither Smith nor Wong remedies the shortcomings of the combination pointed out by Appellants as stated above. Thus, Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejections of claims 5-6, 9, 11, 16, and 18. We do not address the additional issue raised with respect to claim 9 (App. Br. 6), as the issue raised and addressed above is determinative of the appeal. Appeal 2008-2842 Application 10/610,002 7 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10, 12, 14-15, 17, 19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We also conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 5-6, 9, 11, 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). ORDER The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3-12, 14-15, 17-19, and 21 is reversed. REVERSED tdl RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP 1300 POST ROAD SUITE 205 FAIRFIELD, CT 06824