Ex Parte Prosyentsov et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 30, 201613315912 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/315,912 12/09/2011 Vitaliy Prosyentsov 081468-0402054 2517 909 7590 01/04/2017 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP PO Box 10500 McLean, VA 22102 EXAMINER ASFAW, MESFIN T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2882 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2017 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 PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte VITALIY PROSYENTSOV and JOHANNES MARIA VAN BENTEN Appeal 2015-006317 Application 13/315,912 Technology Center 2800 Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s May 20, 2014 decision finally rejecting claims 1—19 (“Final Act.”). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as ASML Netherlands B.V (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal 2015-006317 Application 13/315,912 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants’ invention is directed to a substrate table with a sensor that includes a block of material provided with a layer of material opaque to radiation (Abstract). The layer of material has at least one window configured to allow the transmission of the radiation (id.). The sensor includes a wavelength conversion material located at the window, and a waveguide positioned to receive radiation emitted by the wavelength conversion material (id.). The waveguide is embedded in the block of material and configured to guide radiation emitted by the wavelength conversion material through the block of material and towards a detector (id.). Details of the claimed invention may be seen in illustrative claim 1, which is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief: 1. A substrate table with a sensor, the sensor comprising: a block of material provided with a layer of material opaque to radiation on a top surface thereof, the layer of opaque material having at least one window configured to allow the transmission of the radiation; a wavelength conversion material located at the window; and a waveguide positioned to receive radiation emitted by the wavelength conversion material, the waveguide being embedded in the block of material and being configured to guide radiation emitted by the wavelength conversion material through the block of material and towards a detector. 2 Appeal 2015-006317 Application 13/315,912 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1—6, 10, and 14—19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nishi ‘3862 in view ofNishinaga.3 II. Claims 7—9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nishi ‘386 in view ofNishinaga, and further in view of Nishi ‘102.4 DISCUSSION We decide this appeal based on limitations common to each of the claims. Accordingly, we focus our discussion on the rejection of claim 1 over Nishi ‘386 in view ofNishinaga. The Examiner finds, and Appellants do not dispute, that Nishi ‘386 discloses each element of claim 1, except that Nishi does not disclose a wavelength conversion material located at the window or aperture (Final Act. 2—3, citing Nishi ‘386, FIG. 25, 42:63—43:9, 43:15—37). The Examiner further finds that Nishinaga teaches a fluorescent plate which effects a wavelength conversion, for example, from UV to visible light (Final Act., citing Nishinaga, FIG. 14,1176). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to incorporate the fluorescent plate ofNishinaga at the aperture of the sensor unit of Nishi'386 in order to transmit the radiation of a desired wavelength (Final Act. 3). The Examiner expands on this reasoning by finding that Nishinaga explains why it is important to change the wavelength of the incoming radiation (Ans. 3—5, citing Nishinaga, 176, 2 Nishi, US 6,522,386 Bl, issued February 18, 2008. 3 Nishinaga et al., US 2006/0181690 Al, published August 17, 2006. 4 Nishi, US 6,151,102, issued November 21, 2000. 3 Appeal 2015-006317 Application 13/315,912 181). According to the Examiner, the sensor unit of Nishi ‘386 transmits undesired radiation which can cause a serious problem due to the generation of heating effect on the detectors and results in faulty measurement (Ans. 5). The Examiner does not cite to any specific portion of Nishi ‘386 in support of this finding. The Supreme Court has rejected a rigid requirement of a teaching, suggestion or motivation to combine known elements in order to show obviousness, but has emphasized that “rejections 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.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) {citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). In this instance, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s stated rationale for combining the requisite teachings is not adequate, and the proposed combination is the result of impermissible hindsight analysis. In particular, while Nishinaga explains that in its system, altering the wavelength of the incoming radiation is beneficial because if undesired radiation contacts the sensor, faulty measurements can result (Nishinaga, 1 181), there have been no persuasive findings that this is a problem in the system of Nishi ‘386. The Examiner finds that the sensor unit of Nishi ‘386 “transmits undesired radiation which can cause a serious problem due to the generation of heating effect on the detectors and results in faulty measurement” (Ans. 5). However, nothing in Nishi ‘386 indicates that this is a problem (the Examiner does not cite to any specific portion of Nishi ‘386 to support this finding). Moreover, as explained by Appellants (Reply Br. 3), to the extent that this could be a problem, Nishi ‘386 addresses it by 4 Appeal 2015-006317 Application 13/315,912 use of a shading plate. Thus, the evidence of record does not support the Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Nishinaga with those of Nishi ‘386. It follows that we reverse the rejections on appeal. CONCLUSION We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1—6, 10, and 14—19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nishi ‘386 in view of Nishinaga. We REVERSE the rejection of claims 7—9 and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nishi ‘386 in view of Nishinaga, and further in view of Nishi ‘102. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation