Ex Parte Xiao et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 12, 201712957196 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation