Ex Parte Thallner

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 3, 2013

11715525 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 2013)

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.
11/715,525 03/07/2007 Erich Thallner 1E070201PUS 5541
7590 09/03/2013
William C. Milks, III
Suite 200A
960 San Antonio Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
EXAMINER
SMITH, JEREMIAH R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1723
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/03/2013 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 ERICH THALLNER
____________

Appeal 2012-007939
Application 11/715,525
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and GRACE
KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-10 and 19-28.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for manufacturing a device using a substrate having a
surface, the method comprising:

determining a position of an alignment mark being fixed with respect
to the substrate;

determining position information on the position of a first process area
and on the position of a second process area on the surface of the substrate
with respect to the alignment mark by identifying the first and the second
process area by comparing topographic information determined within the
process area with stored reference-topographic information;
Appeal 2012-007939
Application 11/715,525

2

redetermining the position of the alignment mark;

aligning the position of the first process area using information
derived from the redetermined position of the alignment mark and from the
position information on the position of the first process area;

processing the first process area using a nano-imprinting technique;

aligning the second process area using information derived from the
position information on the position of the second process area; and

processing the second process area using the nano-imprinting
technique.

The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Ina 4,861,162 Aug. 29, 1989
Elings et al. (Elings) 5,418,363 May 23, 1995
Lee et al. (Lee) US 2003/0003676 Jan. 2, 2003
Spiess et al. (Spiess) US 2005/0224452 Oct. 13, 2005
Kikuchi JP 02069958 Mar. 8, 1990

Appellant's claimed invention is directed to a method of making a
device using a nano-imprinting technique to process first and second areas.
The positions of the first and second areas to be processed are aligned by
using topographic information to identify the first and second process areas.
Appealed claims 1-9 and 19-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Ina in view of Elings, Lee, and Spiess.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the stated combination of the references further in view of Kikuchi.
Appeal 2012-007939
Application 11/715,525

3
Appellant does not separately argue any particular claim on appeal.
Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall together with claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant's arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner's
reasoned analysis and application of the prior art, as well as his cogent and
thorough disposition of the arguments raised by Appellant. Accordingly, we
will adopt the Examiner's reasoning as our own in sustaining the rejections
of record, and we add the following for emphasis only.
There is apparently no dispute that Ina uses stored optical information
rather than Appellant's stored topographical information for aligning areas
on a substrate to be processed. However, based on the teachings of Elings
and Lee pertaining to the use of topographical information to control the
alignment of a probe (Elings) and determining the position of a feature on a
wafer (Lee), we find no error in the Examiner's legal conclusion that it
would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
method of Ina by utilizing stored topographical information obtained with
the use of an atomic force microscope rather than stored optical information
to achieve more precise alignment of the process areas. As pointed out by
the Examiner, Lee expressly teaches the following:
Alignment systems currently use optical methods for resolving
alignment marks with much poorer actual resolution than an
AFM [atomic force microscope]. However, the current systems
use complex signal analysis and multiple mark arrays to
achieve greater resolution and mark positioning accuracy
[0027].

Appellant has apprised us of no reason for why it would have been
nonobvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use an atomic force
Appeal 2012-007939
Application 11/715,525

4
microscope and topographical information of a substrate to obtain greater
resolution and alignment of the processing areas of Ina's substrate. We find
no merit in Appellant's argument that the Examiner resorted to
impermissible hindsight to propose the use of more advanced, accurate
measuring techniques in the process of Ina.
Also, Appellant does not rebut the Examiner's legal conclusion that,
based on the Spiess disclosure, "[i]t would have been obvious to a person
having ordinary skill in the art to pattern the semiconductor device using
nano-imprinting rather than lithographical techniques for the benefit of
superior economic value" (Ans. 8, last sentence).
As a final point, we note that Appellant bases no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner 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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

cam