10903295 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 22, 2011)

Ex Parte Sandhu

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 22, 2011

10903295 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 22, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/903,295 07/29/2004 Gurtej S. Sandhu MI22-2596 4812 21567 7590 08/23/2011 Wells St. John P.S. 601 West First Street #1300 Spokane, WA 99201-3828 EXAMINER GEORGE, PATRICIA ANN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1789 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/23/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte GURTEJ S. SANDHU ____________ Appeal 2010-006838 Application 10/903,295 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. Appeal 2010-006838 Application 10/903,295Â Â Â Â 2 DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 13, 17, 18, 22, 23, 27-29, 56, and 57. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6. We REVERSE. Appellant claims a method of forming a reticle comprising providing a reticle substrate of a first material (i.e., quartz), forming a radiation-imageable layer over the first material, forming a lattice pattern within the radiation- imageable layer, and, while utilizing the lattice-patterned radiation-imageable layer as a mask, subjecting the first material to an etch "which transfers the lattice pattern into the first material, the etch forming a plurality of pillars having a square cross-section" (independent claim 1; see also independent claims 13, 17, 27). Claim 1 is representative of the independent claims on appeal and reads as follows: 1. A method of forming a reticle configured for imprint lithography, comprising: providing a reticle substrate, the substrate comprising a first material; forming a radiation-imageable layer over the first material; forming a lattice pattern within the radiation-imageable layer, the lattice pattern having a first series of trenches in a first direction and a second series of trenches in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction defining a plurality of square islands of the radiation-imageable layer; Appeal 2010-006838 Application 10/903,295Â Â Â Â 3 while utilizing the lattice-patterned radiation-imageable layer as a mask, subjecting the first material to an etch which transfers the lattice pattern into the first material, the etch forming a plurality of pillars having a square cross-section which extend only partially into the first material, the pillars being spaced from one another by gaps, the first material being quartz, and the pillars thus being quartz projections; and narrowing the gaps with a second material which only partially fills the gaps, said second material being deposited in said gaps by one or both of ALD and CVD, the second material being silicon dioxide, and being formed to be silicon dioxide spacers that partially envelop said square quartz projections. The following prior art references are applied by the Examiner in the Â§ 103 rejections before us:1 Holmen 4,784,721 Nov. 15, 1988 Dao 5,881,125 Mar. 9, 1999 Coronel 5,930,585 Jul. 27, 1999 Calveley 6,165,911 Dec. 26, 2000 Miller 6,218,309 B1 Apr. 17, 2001 George 2002/0018849 A1 Feb. 14, 2002 Schaper 2003/0219992 A1 Nov. 27, 2003 Charlton et al., Fabrication of high aspect ratio silicon microstructures by anodic etching, J. Micromech. Microeng. 7, (1997) 155-158, IOP Publishing Ltd. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 1 As support for an obviousness conclusion regarding independent claim 27, the Examiner inappropriately relies on references which have not been applied in the statement of rejection (Ans. 4, 10-11). We will not consider these non-applied references in our disposition of this appeal. However, it is appropriate to emphasize that the Examiner's reliance on the non-applied references is not germane to the rejection deficiencies which are discussed in this opinion. Appeal 2010-006838 Application 10/903,295Â Â Â Â 4 Under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a), the Examiner (1) rejects independent claims 1, 13, and 27 over Coronel, Schaper, Miller, George, and Dao; (2) rejects independent claim 17 over Coronel, Miller, Holmen, and Dao; and (3) rejects the remaining claims on appeal, which are all dependent claims, over the previously mentioned references in various combinations with Charlton and Calveley. The dispositive issue before us is raised by the Examiner's conclusion, in rejecting the independent claims, that it would have been obvious to include in the method of Coronel (i.e., as modified by Schaper, Miller, and George or as modified by Miller and Holmen) "a step of forming a lattice pattern of squares having both a first and second series of trenches in an orthogonal direction into the radiation imageable pattern, as claimed, to achieve the resultant repeatable square quartz projections, because one of skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success from the long known teaching of Dao, that illustrates how to transfer such a pattern" (Ans. 9; see also id. at para. bridging 15-16). Appellant argues that Dao contains no teaching or suggestion of transferring a lattice pattern into a first material (i.e., quartz) to form pillars having a square cross-section as required by the independent claims on appeal (App. Br. 12, 13; Reply Br. 2). This argument is persuasive. As correctly explained by Appellant (id.), the checkerboard pattern 22 shown in Figure 2 of Dao is formed in a chrome layer disposed on a quartz base (i.e., the claimed first material) via regions 22a where chrome is present and regions 22b where no chrome is present (col. 6, ll. 29-67), and the checkerboard pattern 22 is not transferred to the quartz base to form pillars as the Examiner Appeal 2010-006838 Application 10/903,295Â Â Â Â 5 seems to believe. Instead, Dao's combination of quartz base and checkerboard pattern forms a reticle which provides a pattern via opening 21 to be formed in a photoresist layer (id.). In an attempt to supply these deficiencies of Dao, the Examiner contends that, "when the chrome [of Dao] is patterned, a portion of the underlying quartz is etched . . . [whereby] the removed quartz layer will inherently occur providing the transfer of the checkerboard (lattice) pattern into the quartz base . . . [so as to] result in a plurality of pillars having a square cross-section" (Ans. para. bridging 19-20). The Examiner's contention is defective in two respects. First, the contention is based on speculation rather than factual evidence. Second, even if Dao's pattern were inherently transferred into the quartz base thereby forming pillars, the Examiner has failed to explain how such an inherent occurrence would be known and would have suggested providing Coronel with the inherent transferring and forming steps. For the above stated reasons, we will not sustain any of the Examiner's Â§ 103 rejections. The decision of the Examiner is reversed. REVERSED kmm