Ex Parte Petric

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2015

12790177 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/790,177 05/28/2010 Paul F. PETRIC 10011.009800 (P3513) 1057
61506 7590 11/30/2015
OKAMOTO & BENEDICTO LLP
P.O. BOX 641330
SAN JOSE, CA 95164
EXAMINER
OSENBAUGH-STEWAR, ELIZA W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2881
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PAUL F. PETRIC
____________

Appeal 2014-000824
Application 12/790,177
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JOHN A. EVANS, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.

JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejections of claims 1–8, 11, and 13–15.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present patent application relates to electron beam lithography.
Spec. 1:21–22.

1 Appellant identifies KLA-Tencor Corporation as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 9, 10, and 12 are cancelled.
Appeal 2014-000824
Application 12/790,177

2
Claim 1 is illustrative (emphasis added):
1. An apparatus for reflection electron beam lithography,
the apparatus comprising:
an electron source structure arranged to form an electron
beam from emitted electrons;
a patterned electron reflector structure which is
configured to reflect select portions of the electron beam so as
to form a patterned electron beam;
a stage to hold a target substrate;
a demagnifying electron lens which is configured to
demagnify the patterned electron beam and project the
demagnified patterned electron beam onto the target substrate;
an ExB separator configured to deflect a trajectory of the
electron beam from the electron source structure towards the
patterned electron reflector structure and to allow the patterned
electron beam to pass straight through towards the
demagnifying electron lens; and
a field lens comprising an electron lens which is
configured to act on the electron beam and the patterned
electron beam as the electron beam and the patterned electron
beam pass through the ExB separator.

Claims 1–4, 6, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mankos et al. (US 6,870,172 B1; Mar. 22, 2005)
(hereinafter “Mankos”) and Toth et al. (US 7,164,139 B1; Jan. 16, 2007)
(hereinafter “Toth”).
Claims 5, 7, 8, and 13–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Mankos, Toth, and Herrmann et al. (US 5,422,486; June 6, 1995)
(hereinafter “Herrmann”).

Appeal 2014-000824
Application 12/790,177

3
ISSUE
Appellant’s arguments present the following dispositive issue:
whether Mankos and Toth teach or suggest “a field lens comprising an
electron lens which is configured to act on the electron beam and the
patterned electron beam as the electron beam and the patterned electron
beam pass through the ExB separator,” as recited in claim 1.

ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “a field lens comprising an electron
lens which is configured to act on the electron beam and the patterned
electron beam as the electron beam and the patterned electron beam pass
through the ExB separator.” Independent claims 7 and 11 recite similar
limitations.
The Examiner finds:
Neither Mankos et al. nor Toth et al. disclose a field lens acting
on the electron beam as the electron beam passes through the
ExB separator. However, Mankos et al. does disclose field
lenses acting on the electron beam just prior to entrance into the
ExB separator, for both the unpatterned and patterned beams
(fig. 1, elements 104 and 110). It would have been obvious to a
person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to modify the apparatus of Mankos et al. in light of
Toth et al. to include an additional field lens within the ExB
separator should additional focusing be desired.

Final Act. 3 (emphasis added.) The Examiner further finds “that an ExB
separator could require additional focusing of the beam (Final Rejection: 3,
last paragraph).” Ans. 3. Thus, the Examiner finds configuring a field lens
comprising an electron lens to act on the electron beam and the patterned
Appeal 2014-000824
Application 12/790,177

4
electron beam as the electron beam and the patterned electron beam pass
through the ExB separator is merely a design choice. Id. at 4.
Appellant contends:
the particular arrangement recited in claim 1 is admitted by the
Examiner to be distinct from the cited art. Appellant
respectfully submits that there is no citation to support the
Examiner’s contention that, should additional focusing have
been desired, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art to come up with the claimed arrangement which
has “a field lens acting on the electron beam as the electron
beam passes through the ExB separator.”

App. Br. 9.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner has
erred. The Examiner’s finding that the claimed configuration would be
obvious “should the additional focusing be desired,” standing alone, is
insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. “[I]t can be
important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of
ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the
claimed new invention does.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007). We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s finding in the prior art
of record “does not state that an ExB separator actually requires additional
focusing. Rather, it speculates that an ExB separator ‘could’ require
additional focusing.” Reply Br. 5.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
independent claims 1, 7, and 11, nor their dependent claims 2–6, 8, and 13–
15, respectively.

Appeal 2014-000824
Application 12/790,177

5
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–8, 11, and 13–
15.

REVERSED

cdc