Ex Parte Van de Vijver et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 5, 2016

12745344 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121745,344 05/28/2010
909 7590 08/09/2016
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV)
PO Box 10500
McLean, VA 22102
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yuri Johannes Gabriel Van de Vijver
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.
081468-0385753 9475
EXAMINER
WHITESELL GORDON, STEVEN H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2882
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/09/2016 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
heather.marthers@pillsburylaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YURI JOHANNES GABRIEL VAN DE VIJVER,
JOHANNES HUBERTUS JOSEPHINA MOORS,
WENDELIN JOHANNA MARIA VERSTEEG, and
PETER GERADUS JONKERS
Appeal2015-000778
Application 12/745,3441
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
PERCURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision finally rejecting claims 1, 3-12, and 14.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is ASML Netherlands B.V. Br.
2.
2 Our decision refers to the Appellants' Specification filed May 28, 2010 (Spec.),
the Final Office Action mailed Dec. 27, 2013 (Final Act.), the Appeal Brief filed
June 13, 2014 (Appeal Br.), the Examiner's Answer mailed Aug. 12, 2014 (Ans.),
and the Reply Brief filed Oct. 10, 2014 (Reply Br.).
Appeal2015-000778
Application 12/745,344
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal relates to lithographic apparatuses and methods
of ensuring continuous and hygienic operation of a mixing apparatus (see, e.g.,
claims 1 and 7). Appellants disclose that vacuum chambers of lithography systems
can be contaminated with particles, which may damage an optical element (e.g., a
mirror) or influence the optical transmittance of a projected beam. Spec. i-f 4. In
view of this, Appellants disclose a lithographic apparatus that suppresses
contamination particles in a vacuum chamber. Spec i-f 6. The lithographic
apparatus includes a purge system configured to provide a purge gas flow in a
vacuum chamber so the number of contamination particles in a region where a
projected beam traverses a chamber may be reduced, such as by flowing the purge
gas so a time for flowing the gas along a surface is smaller than a diffusion time for
a contamination particle to traverse a flow path of the gas. Spec. i-fi-134 and 43.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief. 3 The limitations at issue are italicized.
1. A lithographic apparatus comprising:
an illumination system configured to condition a radiation beam;
a support constructed to support a patterning device, the
patterning device being capable of imparting the radiation beam with a
pattern in its cross-section to form a patterned radiation beam;
a substrate table constructed to hold a substrate;
a projection system configured to project the patterned radiation
beam onto a target portion of the substrate;
a vacuum chamber through which the patterned beam of
radiation is projected during use; and
3 Appeal Br. 10.
2
Appeal2015-000778
Application 12/745,344
a purge system configured to provide a purge gas flow in the
chamber along a purge gas flow path parallel to and across an entire
surface of an optical device, wherein a time for flowing the purge gas
along the surface of the optical device is smaller than a diffusion time
for contamination particles moved by the purge gas flow to transverse
the purge gas flow path.
The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows:
(1) claims 1and3-11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hasegawa4 in view of Sogard; 5
(2) claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hasegawa
and Sogard and further in view of Shuichi;6 and
(3) claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable Hasegawa
and Sogard and further in view of Oshino.7
B. DISCUSSION
Rejection (1)
Claims l and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hasegawa in view of Sogard.
Appellants argue Hasegawa and Sogard do not disclose a purge system
configured to provide a purge gas flow path that is both parallel to and across an
entire surface of an optical device. Appeal Br. 5. Moreover, because Sogard does
not disclose that the purge gas flow path is across an entire surface of an optical
device, Appellants argue that Sogard "cannot teach a time for flowing the purge
gas along the entire surface of the optical device is smaller than a diffusion time for
4 Hasegawa, US 2005/0110966 Al, published May 26, 2005 ("Hasegawa").
5 Sogard, US 2007/0079525 Al, published Apr. 12, 2007 ("Sogard").
6 Shuichi et al., US 2007/0030466 Al, published Feb. 8, 2007 ("Shuichi").
7 Oshino et al., US 2004/0051984 Al, published Mar. 18, 2004 ("Oshino").
3
Appeal2015-000778
Application 12/745,344
contamination particles moved by the purge gas flow to transverse the purge gas
flow path, as recited by claim 1." Appeal Br. 5.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. "[T]he test for
combining references is not what the individual references themselves suggest but
rather what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one
of ordinary skill in the art." In re McLaughlin, 443F.2d1392, 1395(CCPA1971).
Appellants' arguments address the disclosures of Hasegawa and Sogard
individually, not what the combination of the disclosures of Hasegawa and Sogard
as a whole would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The Examiner finds Hasegawa discloses a lithographic apparatus including
an illumination system, a support for a patterning device, a substrate table, a
projection system, a vacuum chamber, and a purge system. Final Act. 3--4. The
purge system disclosed by Hasegawa is used so material accumulated on cryo-
panels is not scattered into a light-path space or adhered to mirrors during
reactivation of the cryo-panels. Hasegawa i-fi-1 97, 98, and 101. The Examiner finds
the gas flow path used during the cryo-panel reactivation process of Hasegawa is
across the entire top surface of mirror 6 and prevents contamination of mirror 6.
Final Act. 4; see also Hasegawa i-fi-f 101, 108 and Figure 3. Appellants' arguments
do not demonstrate how the flow path described by Hasegawa would not be across
the entire surface of mirror 6.
The Examiner finds Hasegawa does not disclose a parallel gas flow. Ans. 2.
Nonetheless, it is of no moment in the§ 103(a) rejection on appeal that Hasegawa
does not disclose that limitation. Here, the Examiner finds Sogard discloses a gas
flow path that is parallel to a surface of a reticle. Final Act. 4; Ans. 3; see also
Sogard i-fi-120 and 59. Appellants do not direct us to any error in the Examiner's
finding.
4
Appeal2015-000778
Application 12/745,344
As for the time limitation recited in claim 1, the Examiner finds, and the
Appellants do not dispute, that Sogard discloses a gas flow velocity of several
hundred meters per second so particles cannot move towards a reticle. Final Act.
4; see also Sogard i-f 59 (disclosing a flow velocity of "5 m/sec to several hundred
m/sec"). Thus, in the Examiner's proposed modification of Hasegawa, wherein the
purge gas flows across the entire surface of Hasegawa's optical device, the purge
gas would flow at the gas flow velocity disclosed in Sogard. The Examiner finds
Sogard's gas flow velocity would be sufficient for flowing gas along the surface of
Hasegawa's optical device for a time that is smaller than a diffusion time for
contamination particles to transverse the purge gas flow path, as recited in claim 1.
Final Act. 4; Ans. 3. Appellants have failed to establish otherwise.
Finally, Appellants contend there would have been no reason to modify
Hasegawa to use the gas flow arrangement of Sogard without the benefit of
impermissible hindsight because Sogard's arrangement is used to prevent
contamination of a reticle, and is not used for cryo-panel reactivation. Appeal Br.
6.
Appellants' argument is unpersuasive of reversible error. As found by the
Examiner:
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made,
given the teaching of a gas flow to prevent contamination of the
optical surface of a mirror in a lithographic apparatus as taught by
Hasegawa in paragraphs [0101], [0108] and [0112], would reasonably
look to the teaching in paragraph [0059] of Sogard of a gas flow
velocity and parallel gas flow in order to prevent contamination from
adhering to the surface of an optical element via a laminar gas flow
with sufficient velocity to entrain the particle and remove it from the
vicinity of the optical surface within lithographic apparatus.
Ans. 4.
5
Appeal2015-000778
Application 12/745,344
In response, Appellants argue there would have been no reason to modify
Hasegawa to use the gas flow arrangement of Sogard because Hasegawa already
provides a means to prevent adhesion of substances to mirrors. Reply Br. 3--4.
We disagree. The mere fact that Hasegawa discloses a means to prevent
adhesion of substances to mirrors would not have discouraged one of ordinary skill
in the art from considering other known ways to prevent adhesion of substances to
mirrors. See Syntex (U.S.A.) LLC v. Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir.
2005) ("[a] prior art reference that does not specifically refer to one element of a
combination does not, per se, teach away. If it did, only references that anticipate
could be used to support an obviousness analysis.").
Appellants do not present any arguments in support of the separate
patentability of claims 3-11. Appeal Br. 7-8. Therefore, for the reasons set forth
above, and for those expressed in the Examiner's Answer, the§ 103(a) rejection of
claims 1 and 3-11 over Hasegawa and Sogard is sustained.
Rejections (2) and (3)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hasegawa and Sogard and further in view of Shuichi.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
Hasegawa and Sogard and further in view of Oshino.
For the rejections of claims 12 and 14, Appellants contend Shuichi and
Oshino do not remedy the deficiencies of the references applied in the rejection of
claim 1. Appeal Br. 8. For the reasons set forth above, there are no deficiencies in
the rejection of claim 1 that require curing by Shuichi or Oshino.
6
Appeal2015-000778
Application 12/745,344
C. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a)( 1 ).
AFFIRMED
7