Ex Parte TinnemansDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 14, 201411471727 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 11/471,727 06/21/2006 Patricius Aloysius Jacobus Tinnemans 1857.4560000 2564 26111 7590 03/14/2014 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. 1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20005 EXAMINER WHITESELL GORDON, STEVEN H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2882 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/14/2014 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 PATRICIUS ALOYSIUS JACOBUS TINNEMANS ________________ Appeal 2011-012344 Application 11/471,727 Technology Center 2800 ________________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, PETER F. KRATZ, and KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-012344 Application 11/471,727 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellant claims a lithographic apparatus and method. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A lithographic apparatus, comprising: an array of individually controllable elements configured to modulate a radiation beam; a projection system configured to project the modulated radiation beam onto a target portion of a substrate; a measuring system configured to measure a separation between an image plane of the projection system and the target portion of the substrate; a memory coupled to the control system, the memory being configured to store pre-calculated adjusted patterns; and a control system configured to determine a projected pattern to be formed by the array of individually controllable elements, the determination including selection of a pattern from the pre-calculated adjusted patterns stored in the memory, the selection based on the measured separation between the image plane of the projection system and the target portion of the substrate such that the image plane of the projected pattern is shifted by an amount so as to focus the projected pattern onto the target portion of the substrate in response to the measured separation between the target portion of the substrate and the image plane. The References Boonman US 2002/0167651 A1 Nov. 14, 2002 Markle US 2002/0171816 A1 Nov. 21, 2002 Lin US 6,486,939 B2 Nov. 26, 2002 Bjorklund US 2003/0210383 A1 Nov. 13, 2003 Ludwig US 2005/0031221 A1 Feb. 10, 2005 Appeal 2011-012344 Application 11/471,727 3 The Rejections The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, 11-17, and 19 over Bjorklund in view of Boonman and Markle, claims 2, 10, and 20 over Bjorklund in view of Boonman, Markle, and Ludwig and claim 18 over Bjorklund in view of Boonman, Markle, and Lin. OPINION We reverse the rejections. Each of the Appellant’s independent claims requires selecting, based upon a measured separation between a projection system’s image plane and a substrate’s target portion, a projected pattern from pre-calculated adjusted patterns such that the projected pattern’s image plane is shifted by an amount which focuses the projected pattern onto the substrate’s target portion. For a suggestion of that claim requirement the Examiner relies upon the combined disclosures of Bjorklund, Boonman and Markle (Ans. 4- 6). Bjorklund uses electrically actuated transducer arrays (2C) operating under computer control using standard adaptive optics algorithms to process surface local curvature data from an optical wavefront sensor (13) (¶0040; Fig. 3). Boonman uses a stored wafer surface height map to position a wafer substrate table and projection system for each exposure and, to adjust the projection system’s focal plane shape, uses manipulators which adjust projection system elements’ vertical, horizontal and/or rotational position (¶¶ 0054, 0060, 0062-63, 0068, 0070). Appeal 2011-012344 Application 11/471,727 4 Markle improves line edge placement accuracy by transferring n different patterns (n ≥ 2) stored in high speed memory into an image transducer having an array of microelements that form a discretized planar reflective surface and using 2n - 1 partial exposures to obtain a complete exposure of a pattern element (¶¶ 0013-14, 0018, 0039, 0041, 0044, 0046- 47). The Examiner argues that “[i]t would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the memory as taught by Markle in the control system utilizing the selection process as taught by Bjorklund in view of Boonman, because storing patterns could allow for reducing the time to reproduce patterns necessary to expose a substrate having similar correction requirements of previously exposed substrates, thereby reducing computing time to generate a map for a single wafer” (Ans. 6). Setting forth a prima facie case of obviousness requires establishing that the applied prior art would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an apparent reason to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The Examiner has not established that it would have been apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art from the references that combining their disclosures “could allow for reducing the time to reproduce patterns necessary to expose a substrate having similar correction requirements of previously exposed substrates” (Ans. 6). Thus, the record indicates that the Examiner’s reason for combining the references is based upon the Appellant’s disclosure rather than the references and that, therefore, the Appeal 2011-012344 Application 11/471,727 5 Examiner used impermissible hindsight in rejecting the Appellant’s claims. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior art”). Accordingly, we reverse the rejections. DECISION/ORDER The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, 11-17, and 19 over Bjorklund in view of Boonman and Markle, claims 2, 10, and 20 over Bjorklund in view of Boonman, Markle, and Ludwig and claim 18 over Bjorklund in view of Boonman, Markle, and Lin are reversed. It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED sld Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation