Ex Parte Xiao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 12, 2017

12957196 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
10-16223-00 1718
EXAMINER
MELLOTT, JAMES M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1712
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/957,196 11/30/2010
105639 7590 12/12/2017
Duane Morris LLP (10/11) Seagate
IP Docketing
2475 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1194
Shuaigang Xiao
12/12/2017 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 SHUAIGANG XIAO, RENEE JOHANNES MARINUS VAN DE
VEERDONK, KIM YANG LEE, DAVID KUO, XIAOMIN YANG,
And WEI HU
Appeal 2017-004364
Application 12/957,196
Technology Center 1700
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final
rejections of claims 25, 26, 28, and 30-48. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The rejections maintained on appeal all rely upon Kamata2,
Morikawa3, and Albrecht4 as evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). (See Final Action 2—9 for full listing of the rejections on appeal).
1 The real party in interest is stated to be Seagate Technology LLC (Br. 3).
2 Kamata et al., US 2005/0069732 Al; Mar. 31, 2005
3 Moriwaki et al., US 2009/0029189 Al; Jan. 29, 2009
4 Albrecht et al., US 2009/0308837 Al; Dec. 17, 2009
Appeal 2017-004364
Application 12/957,196
Claim 25 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
25. A method, comprising:
imprinting a 20-50 nm-thick resist to form a topographical
pattern in the resist,
wherein the topographical pattern comprises a first region
having a first height and a second region having a second, different
height;
depositing a block copolymer composition over the resist; and
annealing the block copolymer composition to form an
annealed block copolymer composition,
wherein the annealed block copolymer composition comprises a
first block over the first region and a second block over the first and
second regions, and
wherein the annealed block copolymer composition is
substantially topographically flat.
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellants’ contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this
record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of
Appellants’ claims is unpatentable over the applied prior art. We sustain the
§103 rejections based on the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
rebuttals to arguments expressed by the Examiner in the Answer.
2
Appeal 2017-004364
Application 12/957,196
We add the following for emphasis. Appellants’ arguments center on
the undesirability of using Albrecht’s e-beam patterned resist (Br. 13—15).5
Notably, as pointed out by the Examiner, the rejections do not rely upon
using the e-beam patterning process of Albrecht in Kamata’s process, rather
they rely upon Kamata’s imprinting process modified to include the block
copolymer deposition and annealing steps of Albrecht (Ans. 3—6; see also
Final Action 4, 5). Thus, Appellants have not presented persuasive
arguments sufficient to rebut the Examiner’s position.
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).
AFFIRMED
5 Appellants only present arguments for all the claims as a group and do not
present separate arguments for any claim (Br. 13—15), including those
separately rejected (Br. 17, 18).
3