Ex Parte Sigel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2018

14682502 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/682,502 04/09/2015
26161 7590 08/24/2018
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO)
P.O. BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Benjamin Sigel
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
42047-0043002 3363
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, HUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2882
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2018 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BENJAMIN SIGEL,
ANDREAS BERTELE, PETER KLOESCH,
MARTIN MAHLMANN, and JOCHEN WEBER
Appeal2017-010047
Application 14/682,502
Technology Center 2800
Before GEORGE C. BEST, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 23-30 and 34--51. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed April 9, 2015 ("Spec."),
the Final Office Action dated April 22, 2016 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief
filed January 11, 2017 ("Appeal Br."), the Examiner's Answer dated June
30, 2017 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed July 18, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2 Appellant is the Applicant, Carl Zeiss SMT GmbH, which, according to the
Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Application Data Sheet filed April
9, 2015; Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-010047
Application 14/682,502
The subject matter on appeal relates to a projection exposure
apparatus equipped with an actuator system for semiconductor lithography.
Spec. 1, 11. 15-16. Claim 23, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claims
on appeal.
23. A projection exposure apparatus, comprising:
an optical element;
a mount for the optical element;
an actuator system to mechanically actuate the optical
element, the actuator system comprising a heat transport
element in thermal contact with the mount to transfer heat
generated during use of the actuator system away from the
actuator system to reduce heat input into the optical element
from the actuator system during use of the actuator system; and
a first control/regulating unit to drive the heat transport
element to reduce heat input into the optical element,
wherein the projection exposure apparatus is a
semiconductor microlithography projection exposure apparatus.
Appeal Br. 5 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
Rejection 1: Claims 23-26, 28-30, and 35-51 under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Franken et al. (US 7,151,588 B2,
issued December 19, 2006) ("Franken") in view of Amemiya et al.
(US 5,231,291, issued July 27, 1993) ("Amemiya") (Final Act. 2--4; Ans. 2-
3); and
Rejection 2: Claims 27 and 34 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Franken in view of Amemiya, and further in view of Cox
2
Appeal2017-010047
Application 14/682,502
et al. (US 6,788,386 B2, published September 7, 2004) (hereinafter "Cox")
(Final Act. 4; Ans. 2-3).
DISCUSSION
After consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellant's contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence
supports the Examiner's conclusions that the subject matter of Appellant's
claims is unpatentable over the applied prior art. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner's rejections for substantially the findings and reasons set forth
by the Examiner in the Final Office Action, Answer, and below.
Rejection 1
Appellant does not present separate arguments for the patentability of
independent claims 41, 42, and dependent claims 24--26, 28-30, 35--40, and
43-51. Appeal Br. 2--4. Thus, we select claim 23 as representative of the
claims subject to the first stated ground of rejection, and the remaining
claims subject to that rejection will stand or fall with claim 23.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Franken's Figure 2, reproduced below,
teaches a projection system (PL) including optical elements (Ml-M6) as
mirrors that are housed in support frame 4 and actuator 26 for moving the
mirrors into desired positions (col. 10, 11. 41-55). Final Act. 2.
3
Appeal2017-010047
Application 14/682,502
Fig. 2
z
t
i ___________ y
Franken's Figure 2, reproduced above, depicts a lithographic
apparatus including a temperature deformation compensation circuit.
The Examiner finds that Franken's system also includes thermal
deformation compensation units 10, 15 (i.e., heat transport elements) that in
connection with frame 4, extend or can be disposed in a location remote
from the lithographic apparatus (col. 13, 11. 19-30, 54---63). Final Act. 2.
The Examiner acknowledges that Franken does not explicitly teach
that its thermal deformation system (i.e., heat transport elements) is in
thermal contact with the mount/frame for transferring heat generated by the
actuator away from the actuator system to reduce heat to the mirrors/optical
elements. Final Act. 3. To account for this difference, the Examiner finds
that Amemiya's Figure 1, which depicts a photolithographic exposure
apparatus, teaches ports 10 and 11 (i.e., heat transport element) connected to
wafer table 5 (i.e., table on which the wafer is mounted) for transferring
4
Appeal2017-010047
Application 14/682,502
heated water away from the wafer (Ans. 6-7; see also Amemiya, col. 3,
11. 1-10 & 10-15).
EXPOSURE 100
RADIATION SOURCE .,,-
_,.-I {14 ;15
2_.-.,r-::::::::::::::::::::::::i:--J SHUTTER H ~HUTTER J----·--1 ._ ! DRIVE _ . CONTROL _
g
12
FIG.
TEMP
MEASURING
MEANS
PELTIER
DEVICE
ACTUATOR
)8
25
FLOW RATE1-------t
CONTROL
19
20
Amemiya's Figure 1, reproduced above, illustrates a step-and-repeat
type photolithographic exposure apparatus with a wafer table.
Amemiya teaches a wafer table comprising an actuator (5, 25) and
ports ( 10, 11) to transmit the thermal energy produced inside the wafer table
by the exposure radiation rays to a constant temperature water side, and
circulate constant temperature water for removing the heat from wafer table
(col. 3, 11. 1-10, 15-20, col. 3, 1. 54--col. 4, 1. 5).
Appellant argues that Franken and Amemiya do not teach the claim
limitation "a heat transport element in thermal contact with the mount to
transfer heat generated during use of the actuator system away from the
actuator system to reduce heat input into the optical element" because
Franken teaches reducing thermal deformations by "adjusting ( e.g., moving)
5
Appeal2017-010047
Application 14/682,502
a different element" rather than "by reducing heat input to the element"
(Appeal Br. 3).
Appellant's argument is not persuasive of reversible error because
Appellant is attacking the references individually when the rejection is based
upon a combination of prior art disclosures. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCP A 1981) ("[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of
references"). Appellant's argument fails to identify or explain why the
Examiner's finding that Amemiya teaches the contested limitation is
erroneous.
The Examiner finds that Amemiya teaches actuator system 25
comprising input and output ports 10, 11 (i.e., heat transport system) in
thermal contact with the wafer table on which the wafer is mounted, where
the input and output ports transfer water into the system in order to absorb
heat and then transfer the heated water away from the system and wafer (i.e.,
transferring heat away from the system to reduce heat input) (Final Act. 3;
Ans. 6-7; see also Amemiya, col. 3, 11. 1-10, 15-20 & col. 3, 1. 54---col. 4, 1.
5). Appellant responds to this argument by asserting that "the Examiner
made a substantial change" in the rejection from the Examiner's Final
Rejection which, "is not compliant with M.P.E.P. protocol. See, e.g.,
M.P.E.P. §1207" (Reply Br. 1). Appellant's response is not well-taken
given that, in the Final Office Action, the Examiner explicitly found that
Amemiya was being relied on as teaching the asserted limitation because
"Franken[] does not expressly disclose the heat transport element in thermal
contact with regions of the mount that are exposed to heat generated during
6
Appeal2017-010047
Application 14/682,502
use of the actuator to reduce heat input into the optical element (Ml) from
the actuator system during use of the actuator system" (Final Act. 3).
Appellant also argues that Franken is not combinable with Amemiya
because the optical elements are different in each of the references ( a mirror
in Franken and a wafer in Amemiya) (Reply Br. 2).
The Examiner finds that both Amemiya and Franken are concerned
with solving the same problem discussed in Appellant's Specification-
namely, reducing the amount of heat generated from a lithography system
(Ans. 4, 7-8). The skilled artisan would "be able to fit the teachings of
multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle" since the skilled artisan is
"a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420-21 (2007). It is not necessary that the
references be physically combinable, without change, to render obvious the
invention under review. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The criterion instead is what these references would have taught or
suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention. In re
Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986 (Fed. Cir. 1991). On this record, Appellant does
not present persuasive arguments or evidence that one of ordinary skill in the
art would not have, through the use of no more than ordinary creativity,
modified Franken' s lithography system "to employ the heat transport
element and the first control/regulating unit" of Amemiya to reduce heat
input into Franken's optical element "to effectively reduce the thermal
expansion of the optical element and thereby [improve] the quality of the
projection exposure apparatus" (Final Act. 4; Ans. 7).
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of claims 23-26, 28-30, and 35-51.
7
Appeal2017-010047
Application 14/682,502
Rejection 2
Appellant relies on the same arguments raised in connection with
claims 23, 41, and 42 discussed above to identify reversible error in the
Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 27 and 34. See Appeal Br. 2-3.
Accordingly, based on the reasons set forth above, and in the Answer, we
determine that the preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner's
conclusion that the subject matter recited in claims 27 and 34 is unpatentable
over the applied prior art. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of claims 27 and 34.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 23-30 and
34--51 are 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
8