Ex parte Mcclelland

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 8, 1998

08008976 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 8, 1998)

Application for patent filed January 26, 1993.1
-1-
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte JABEZ McCLELLAND
________________
Appeal No. 95-3942
Application No. 08/008,9761
________________
ON BRIEF
________________
Before KIMLIN, SCHAFER and OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claim 6.
Claims 2-5, the other claims remaining in the present
application, have been objected to by the examiner as being
allowable but dependent upon the rejected claim. Appealed claim
6 reads as follows:
Appeal No. 95-3942
Application No. 08/008,976
-2-
6. A lithography process for defining features on a
workpiece comprising directing a beam of metastable rare gas
atoms onto a surface of a lithographic resist so that the
metastable rare gas atoms strike the surface of said lithographic
resist whereby internal energy of said metastable rare gas atoms
is released.
In the rejection of the appealed claim, the examiner relies
upon the following reference:
McMillan 4,746,799 May 24, 1988
Appellant relies upon the following reference as evidence of
nonobviousness:
Saita et al. (Saita) 4,974,227 Nov. 27, 1990
Appellant's claimed invention is directed to a lithographic
process which comprises exposing a lithographic resist to a
directed beam of metastable rare gas atoms. According to
appellant, the use of metastable rare gas atoms is an improvement
over the prior art use of visible, UV and X-ray radiation because
it allows for an exposed pattern of finer dimension. For
instance, whereas the smallest spot size attainable by visible
light, UV radiation and X-rays is 200-300 nm, about 100 nm and
about 30 nm, respectively, metastable rare gas atoms provide
small spot sizes on the order of 1.3 nm. Also, while the prior
art use of electrons and ions as exposing radiation results in
the smallest feature sizes of 2 nm and 20 nm, respectively, the
use of electrons and ions as exposing radiation does not allow
Appeal No. 95-3942
Application No. 08/008,976
-3-
for manipulation of the radiation throughout the entire length of
the beam, as is the case with metastable rare gas atoms.
Appealed claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by McMillan.
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments
presented on appeal, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejection.
It is fundamental that to constitute anticipation under
35 U.S.C. § 102 all material elements of a claim must be present
in one prior art source. In re Marshall, 578 F.2d 301, 304,
198 USPQ 344, 346 (CCPA 1978); In re Kalm, 378 F.2d 959, 962,
154 USPQ 10, 12 (CCPA 1967). In the present case, we concur with
appellant that McMillan fails to describe within the meaning of §
102 the claimed step of "directing a beam of metastable rare gas
atoms onto a surface of a lithographic resist" (emphasis added).
We appreciate that McMillan, at column 5, lines 24-28, discloses
that "significant radiation from the collision zone consists of
metastable or ground state atoms, free radicals, and
electromagnetic radiation (light). In general, this radiation
emanates in all directions from the collision zone." However,
McMillan discloses that it is ions and vacuum ultraviolet light
that is directed onto the resist. McMillan provides no
description of directing a beam of metastable rare gas atoms onto
Appeal No. 95-3942
Application No. 08/008,976
-4-
a lithographic resist, as required by appealed claim 6. While we
appreciate that the resist of McMillan may be incidentally
exposed to some level of intensity of metastable atoms, as well
as ions and vacuum ultraviolet radiation, the examiner has not
established with factual evidence that the process of McMillan
inherently directs a beam of metastable atoms on the resist.
Based on the foregoing, the examiner's decision rejecting
the appealed claims is reversed.
REVERSED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
RICHARD E. SCHAFER ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-3942
Application No. 08/008,976
-5-
Larson and Taylor
727 23rd Street South
Arlington, VA 22202