Ex Parte Mei

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 13, 2009

10342795 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 13, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte PING MEI
________________

Appeal 2009-003156
Application 10/342,795
Technology Center 1700
________________

Decided:1 July 13, 2009
________________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, TERRY J. OWENS, and
CATHERINE Q. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-8, 25, 32, and 33, which are all of the pending claims.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the Decided Date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-003156
Application 10/342,795

2
The Invention
The Appellant claims an imprint lithography method. Claim 1 is
illustrative:

1. A method for using a polymerizable mixture in an imprint
lithography process, comprising:

forming a layer of an uncured polymerizable mixture above a
substrate, said polymerizable mixture including: a cross linker, a
compensation agent, and a photoinitiator;

patterning said uncured polymerizable mixture with a stamper; and

UV-curing said patterned polymerizable mixture, without releasing
said stamper, to form a patterned polymer-usable as a mask in said imprint
lithography process.

The Reference
Belser 6,898,031 B1 May 24, 2005
(filed Apr. 19, 2001)
The Rejection
Claims 1-8, 25, 32, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
the Appellant’s admitted prior art in view of Belser.
OPINION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection.
Issue
Has the Appellant shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that the applied prior art would have rendered prima facie
obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, patterning, with a stamper, a layer
of uncured polymerizable mixture containing a compensating agent, and
Appeal 2009-003156
Application 10/342,795

3
without releasing the stamper, UV-curing the patterned polymerizable
mixture?
Findings of Fact
The Appellant acknowledges that it was known in the art to form a
mask by applying a layer of a UV-curable polymerizable mixture, which
typically includes a cross-linker and a photoinitiator, to a substrate,
patterning the layer with a stamper, and curing the mixture (Spec. 1-2). The
Appellant states that the Appellant’s compensating agent can be a negative
photoresist (Spec. 6).
Belser performs imprint lithography by stamping a pattern into a resist
layer so that portions of the resist layer are compressed and other portions
are at or near their original thickness, and then removing the compressed
portions (col. 2, ll. 17-24). The resist can be either a negative or positive
photoresist (col. 4, ll. 41-46).
Analysis
The Appellant argues that Belser cures before patterning with the
stamper, and that no curing can occur with the stamper on the resist layer
because UV light cannot penetrate the metal stamper (Br. 11-12).2 Belser,
the Appellant argues, “does not disclose or suggest the UV-curing imprint
lithography process described in the Specification. As a result, BELSER
does not address the issues regarding the difficulty of removing
ploymers [sic] after UV-curing” (Br. 12-13).

2 Belser discloses that the stamper may be comprised of a metal layer (col. 6,
l. 25).
Appeal 2009-003156
Application 10/342,795

4
As pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 5-6), the steps which the
Appellant argues are missing from Belser are in the Appellant’s admitted
prior art.
Establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of an invention
comprising a combination of known elements requires “an apparent reason
to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed.” KSR Int’l. Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The Examiner argues that one of
ordinary skill in the art who desired, in the admitted prior art process,
UV-cured mask portions in a fluid state to facilitate removal would have
used Belser’s negative photoresist as the UV-curable polymer (Ans. 6). That
argument is plausible and has not been challenged by the Appellant. Hence,
we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s argument.
Conclusion of Law
The Appellant has not shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that the applied prior art would have rendered prima facie
obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, patterning, with a stamper, a layer
of uncured polymerizable mixture containing a compensating agent, and
without releasing the stamper, UV-curing the patterned polymerizable
mixture.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejection of claims 1-8, 25, 32, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
the Appellant’s admitted prior art in view of Belser is affirmed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
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
Appeal 2009-003156
Application 10/342,795

5
PL Initial:
sld

HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY
P.O. BOX 272400, 3404 E. HARMONY ROAD
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
FORT COLLINS, CO 80527-2400