Ex Parte Lammers et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 25, 201612898084 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/898,084 10/05/2010 909 7590 07/27/2016 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) PO Box 10500 McLean, VA 22102 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jeroen Herman LAMMERS 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. 081468-0388736 3161 EXAMINER SHAFI, LEITH S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1744 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/27/2016 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): docket_ip@pillsburylaw.com heather.marthers@pillsburylaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JEROEN HERMAN LAMMERS, 1 Sander Frederik Wuister, Yvonne Wendela Kruijt-Stegeman, and Roelof Koo le Appeal2014-0055102 Application 12/898,084 Technology Center 1700 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, MARK NAGUMO, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Jeroen Herman Lammers, Sander Frederik Wuister, Yvonne Wendela Kruijt-Stegeman, and Roelof Koo le ("Lammers") timely appeal under 1 The real party in interest is identified as ASML Netherlands B.V. (Appeal Brief, filed 2 December 2013 ("Br."), 2.) 2 Hearing scheduled for 6 July 2016 waived. (Communication received 27 June 2016.) Appeal2014-005510 Application 12/898,084 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection3 of claims 15-22 and 25-27. 4 We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6. We reverse. OPINION A. Introduction 5 The subject matter on appeal relates to an apparatus for imprint lithography. The '084 Specification teaches that imprint lithography is being developed for nanometer or submicron features in lithographic processes as an alternative to costly and technologically difficult optical methods. (Spec. 1 [0003]-[0004].) In an imprint lithography process, an imprint template is impressed onto a surface bearing an imprintable liquid medium that can be cured by actinic radiation. (Id. at 2 [0006].) In the words of the Specification, "[g]aps between the droplets [of the imprintable liquid medium] may lead to voids at the interface between the patterned surface and the imprintable liquid medium which may eventually disappear as they become filled with the imprintable liquid medium." (Id.) Waiting for these gaps to fill is said to be one of the most time consuming steps, "typically in excess of 2 seconds." (Id. at 3 [0009].) It is said to be 3 Office action mailed 2 July 2013 ("Final Rejection"; cited as "FR"). See also the Advisory Action mailed 13 September 2013 ("Adv.") 4 Copending claims 1 and 9-14 have been withdrawn from consideration, and remaining copending claims 23 and 24 have been objected to by the Examiner; none of these claims are before us. (Advisory Action 1 § 15; mailed 13 September 2013; "Adv.") 5 Application 12/898,084, Imprint lithography apparatus and method, filed 5 October 2010, claiming the benefit of 61/249,351, filed 7 October 2009. We refer to the '"084 Specification," which we cite as "Spec." 2 Appeal2014-005510 Application 12/898,084 desirable to minimize these waiting times in order to improve the overall efficiency of the method (id. at 4 [001 OJ). The inventors seek patent protection for an apparatus that is said to accomplish this goal by monitoring optically the scattering of light from the interfaces between the gaps or voids and the imprintable liquid medium as the imprint template is impressed into the imprintable liquid medium, and calculating when the filling will be completed. Claim 15 is representative of the dispositive issues and reads: An imprint apparatus comprising: an imprint holder configured to hold an imprint template, the imprint template having a patterned surface to pattern an imprintable liquid medium on a substrate by contact between the patterned surface and the imprintable liquid medium, a substrate table configured to hold the substrate, a detector configured to generate a signal derived from light emergent from an interface between the imprintable liquid medium and the patterned surface, during a filling period as imprintable liquid medium substantially fills the recesses in the patterned surface, and a computer configured to derive data from the signal concerning one or more voids at the interface during the filling period, and to derive an estimated end time for the filling period from a relationship between the data and time. (Claims App., Br. 28; some indentation, paragraphing, and emphasis added.) Remaining independent claim 20 recites a similar requirement for a computer. (Claims App., Br. 29.) 3 Appeal2014-005510 Application 12/898,084 The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection6 : A. Claims 15-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in view of Kolesnychenko. 7 Al. Claims 20-22 and 25-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Kolesnychenko and Chou. 8 B. Discussion Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a preponderance of the evidence of record. To be anticipatory, a reference must describe, either expressly or inherently, each and every claim limitation, arranged or combined as required by the claimed invention, and enable one of skill in the art to practice an embodiment of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. See, e.g., In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Examiner makes inconsistent findings regarding the teachings of Kolesnychenko. First, the Examiner finds that Kolesnychenko describes a computer "configured to ... derive an estimated end time for the filling period from a relation between the data and the time." (FR, sentence bridging 2-3; Adv. 2; Ans. 3, 11. 1--4; each citing Kolesnychenko [0074]). Second, the Examiner finds that "Kolesnychenko does not teach that the 6 Examiner's Answer mailed 7 February 2014 ("Ans."). 7 Aleksey Yurievch Kolesnychenko et al., Imprint lithography, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0268256 Al (2006). 8 Stephen Y. Chou and Zhaoning Yu, Imprint lithography with improved monitoring and control and apparatus therefor, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0037143 Al (2005). 4 Appeal2014-005510 Application 12/898,084 computer is configured to calculate an estimated end time required for the imprintable liquid medium to substantially fill the recesses in the patterned surface from the data derived from the signal generated by the detector." (FR 4; Adv. 4; Ans. 4, 11. 18-22; each discussing independent claim 20.) As Lammers urges (Br. 5---6), review of Kolesnychenko does not reveal substantial evidence supporting the Examiner's findings that Kolesnychenko teaches a computer configured in the manner required by claim 15. Kolesnychenko does disclose in paragraph [0074] detection of an optical signal originating from scattering from the flow of an imprintable material into the gaps between the surface of an imprint template and a substrate. Kolesnychenko further discloses that the intensity value may be compared by controller C with a threshold value indicating that the flow has been completed. There is no issue9 over the capability of a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify an apparatus such as the one described by Kolesnychenko to estimate the completion time of filling. But the Examiner has not directed our attention to any disclosure in Kolesnychenko that the apparatus has been programmed to calculate the end time of the filling period. The Examiner finds that Chou makes up for the deficiencies of Kolesnychenko. (FR 4; Adv. 4; Ans., para. bridging 3--4.) In particular, the Examiner finds that "Chou teaches that it is possible to detect and control the filling rate." (Id., citing Chou [0081] and Chou, Fig. 15.) Indeed, Chou states that "Fig. 15 shows that this metro logy is capable of providing in situ 9 Assuming, for example, that controller C is a general purpose programmable computer-for several decades, now, an unremarkable assumption. 5 Appeal2014-005510 Application 12/898,084 process control in imprint by detecting the effect of the change in processing conditions as they occur during the imprint process." (Chou [0081 ].) Again, however, the Examiner has not directed our attention to any teaching or suggestion in Chou regarding the desirability of calculating when the filling will be complete. On the present record, the only suggestion for the desirability of such a calculation-and hence of the desirability of an apparatus programmed to have that capability---comes from the '084 Specification. In a homely analogy, many modem home kitchen ovens are equipped with a temperature probe that can be inserted into a roast or other item, and the oven is programmed to tum the heating element off when the roast reaches a specified temperature. However, it is not common for these ovens to be programmed to display the estimated time to completion of cooking. Although it would be, presumably, within the skill of the ordinary oven designer to provide such a program; without a prior-art based motivation; an oven modified to estimate the remaining cooking time would not be obvious. We reverse the rejections of record. C. Order It is ORDERED that the rejection of claims 15-22 and 25-27 is reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation