Ex Parte Wevers et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 18, 2014

11934509 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RUTGER WEVERS, ANDREAS SEIFERT,
JOACHIM HARTJES, and GUENTHER DENGEL
____________

Appeal 2012-0044431
Application 11/934,509
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection
of claims 1, 2, 5-9, 14, 15, 17 and 21-25.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants’ invention relates to an apparatus that includes a
mirror carrier, a tube connection and a sealing arrangement. The
mirror carrier includes a crystalline material and has at least one

1 An oral hearing was held June 10, 2014.
2 Claims 16, 18 and 26-31 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 3, 4 and 10-13 are objected to. (App. Br. 1).
Appeal 2012-004443
Application 11/934,509

2
cooling channel and the tube connection includes a metallic material
(Spec. 1, ll. 20-29). Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a mirror carrier having at least one cooling channel, the mirror
carrier comprising a crystalline material;
a tube connection comprising a metallic material, the tube
connection being configured to be capable of connecting the at least
one cooling channel to an inlet of coolant or an outlet of coolant, and
the tube connection having an external thread screwed into a
corresponding thread hole in the mirror carrier; and
a sealing element configured to be capable of providing a gas-
tight and liquid-tight seal, the sealing element being arranged
between the tube connection and the mirror carrier.

The following rejection from the final office action3 is
presented for our review:
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 14, 15, 17 and 21-25 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of
Sogard (US 2005/0099611 A1), and Balogh (US 2006/0227826 A1).

OPINION

Independent Claims 1, 14 and 22
We do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 14
and 22.4 Claims 1 and 22 require the mirror carrier to have a
mechanical connection which engages the cooling system that runs
there through. Claim 1 specifies a threaded connection and claim 22

3 Final office action mailed February 16, 2011.
4 We also do not sustain the rejection of the dependent claims 2, 15,
17, and 21.
Appeal 2012-004443
Application 11/934,509

3
specifies a soldered connection. Appellants correctly argue (App.
Br. 4) Sogard discloses:
Successful application of this invention requires that the
cooling pipes be mechanically isolated from the mirror while
remaining surrounded by a controlled atmosphere of He gas.
Sogard ¶ 0038.

Thus, we agree with Appellants that it would not have been
obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Sogard to provide a tube
connection having an external thread screwed into a corresponding
thread hole in a mirror carrier in the manner required by claim 1 or
to modify Sogard to provide solder connecting a tube connection to
a mirror carrier in the manner required by claim 22 because this
would be contrary to Sogard’s desire to keep his cooling pipes
mechanically isolated from his mirror. (App. Br. 4, 5 and 9; Sogard
¶ 0038). Balogh does not overcome this fundamental teaching of
Sogard.
Claim 14 requires the mirror carrier to have a metallic
connection element that engages at least one thread of the mirror
carrier. We agree with Appellants (App. Br. 8) that this type of
connection mechanism would have been contrary to Sogard’s desire
to keep the cooling pipes mechanically isolated from the mirror.

Appeal 2012-004443
Application 11/934,509

4
Independent Claim 5
We do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 5.5
Claim 5 requires “sealing element[s] . . . configured to be capable of
providing a gas-tight and liquid-tight seal between the tube
connections and the mirror carrier.” The Examiner relies on Sogard
¶ 0039 as describing a gas-tight and liquid-tight seal between the
tube connections and the mirror carrier. (Final Act. 4; Ans. 7).
Contrary to the Examiner’s position Sogard states:
FIG. 8C shows a coolant pipe 810 within a channel
815. The channel has visco-elastic gas tight seals 820 at
the mirror periphery. In addition, the pipe is centered
within the channel by means of a helical coil 822 of
visco-elastic material.
Sogard ¶ 0039. This disclosure shows a seal between the channel
815 and the mirror periphery with pipe 820 centered within the
channel 815. Thus, the Examiner has failed to identify elements that
meet the claimed invention.

Claims 23 and 24
We do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 23 and
24. Claims 23 and 24 require “a mirror carrier with at least one
cooling channel” and a tube connection being surrounded by cutouts
for stress relief or having a mechanism for stress relief.
The Examiner found that Sogard discloses the tube connections
being surrounded by cutouts. The Examiner specifically states
“Sogard, Fig. 9A: 932; para. 41 – manifold tubes are sealed to mirror

5 We also do not sustain the rejection of the dependent claims 6-9.
Appeal 2012-004443
Application 11/934,509

5
through visco-elastic seals; the seal locations constitute holes or
‘cutouts’ in the mirror material, then filled with a visco-elastic
material.” (Final Act. 5; Ans. 8).
We agree with Appellants (App. Br. 9-10) that Sogard’s
elements 932 are not part of the pipe 910 (see Sogard Figs. 9A and
9B). Thus, Sogard fails to disclose “a tube connection configured to
be capable of connecting the at least one cooling channel to an inlet
of coolant or an outlet of coolant,” at least one part of the tube
connection projecting into the mirror carrier and having cutouts for
stress relief or a mechanism for stress relief as required by claims 23
and 24.6

Claim 25
We do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 25.
According to the Examiner (Ans. 21) “[t]he mirror system is
designed to reflect light at l3 nm (para. [0071]), which is in the
stated range. Thus the system as a whole is resistant to wavelengths
of that range.”
We agree with Appellants that “one skilled in the art would
understand that not every element in Sogard’s system, particularly
those which are not exposed to [Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV)]
radiation during use, are radiation resistant to light in the wavelength
range of from 1 nm to 100 nm.” (App. Br. 10). The Examiner has
not directed us to evidence that establishes Sogard’s tube connection

6 Balogh is not cited to address this limitation.
Appeal 2012-004443
Application 11/934,509

6
is radiation-resistant to light in the wavelength range of from 1 nm
to 100 nm as required by claim 25.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 5-9, 14, 15,
17 and 21-25 is reversed.

REVERSED
llw