Ex Parte Loopstra et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 29, 2016

12540548 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/540,548 08/13/2009
909 7590 03/02/2016
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV)
PO Box 10500
McLean, VA 22102
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Erik Roelof Loopstra
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.
081468-03 81402 1539
EXAMINER
CHANG, HANWAY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2881
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2016 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 ERIK ROELOF LOOPSTRA,
JAN BERNARD PLECHELMUS VAN SCHOOT, and
GERARDUS HUBERTUS PETRUS MARIA SWINKELS 1
Appeal2014-004886
Application 12/540,548
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a radiation source, a
lithographic apparatus, and a device manufacturing method. Spec. i-f 2;
1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is ASML
Netherlands B.V. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-004886
Application 12/540,548
Claim 1. Claim 1 is reproduced below from Appendix A (Pending Claims)
of the Appeal Brief:
1. A radiation source, comprising:
a beam generator configured to generate a radiation beam to be
used to produce a radiation output of the radiation source, the
radiation source configured to focus at least part of the radiation
beam onto a focus spot; and
a beam monitor configured to monitor a quality of the radiation
beam at the focus spot, the beam monitor comprising an
analyzer module configured to analyze the radiation beam at a
beam analyzing location separate from the beam generator.
EVIDENCE RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Neal et al.
Sandstrom et al.
Melnychuk et al.
us 5,936,720
US 6,816,302 B2
US 2005/0230645 Al
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Aug. 10, 1999
Nov. 9, 2004
Oct. 20, 2005
1. Claims 1, 2, 4--10, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Melnychuk in view of Sandstrom. 2
2. Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Melnychuk in view of Sandstrom, further in view of Neal.
2 In the Final Action, the Examiner's header lists only claims 1, 4--6, and 12-
16 as being subject to Rejection 1. Final Act. 2. However, the Examiner's
analysis covers claims 2, id. at 3, and claims 7-10, id. at 4, in addition to the
claims listed in the Examiner's header. The Appellants cover all of those
claims in their Appeal Brief. E.g., App. Br. 5 (header IV.A). Thus, we treat
Rejection 1 as covering claims 1, 2, 4--10, and 12-16.
2
Appeal2014-004886
Application 12/540,548
ANALYSIS
Relying on Figure 4C of Melnychuk, the Examiner finds that
Melnychuk teaches the "beam generator" element of claim 1 but that it does
not teach the "beam monitor" element of claim 1. Final Act. 2. The
Examiner finds that Sandstrom teaches a beam monitor configured to
analyze the radiation quality of a radiation beam. Id. The Examiner
concludes that "it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the
time the invention was made to monitor the radiation beam for the purpose
of having greater control over the pattern generation at the focus spot." Id.
As the Appellants explain, however, the Examiner's analysis
concerning the "beam monitor" element fails to support a prima facie case of
obviousness for claim 1. E.g., App. Br. 7-8. In the Final Action, the
Examiner makes findings concerning a beam monitor generally, e.g., Final
Act. 2, but the Examiner provides no meaningful explanation concerning (1)
whether Sandstrom's beam monitor is "configured to analyze the radiation
beam at a beam analyzing location separate from the beam generator," or (2)
whether the beam monitor "monitor[ s] a quality of the radiation beam at the
focus spot," as recited in claim 1. See id. The Appellants identify those
apparent deficiencies in the Appeal Brief. See App. Br. 7-8.
In the Answer, the Examiner makes findings concerning the first of
those elements, e.g., Ans. 3, but fails to provide an explanation concerning
the second. "[R ]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by
mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness." In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). On this
3
Appeal2014-004886
Application 12/540,548
record, the Examiner has not provided sufficient reasoning to sustain the
obviousness rejection. Therefore, we must reverse the rejection of claim 1.
The remaining claims on appeal likewise include the disputed claim
element, either expressly or through claim dependencies, and the Examiner's
rejection of those claims does not remedy the error identified above. We
therefore must reverse the Examiners rejection of claims 2-16.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-16.
REVERSED
4