Ex Parte Yakunin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 8, 2016

13058783 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/058,783 02/11/2011
909 7590 08/10/2016
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV)
PO Box 10500
McLean, VA 22102
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Andrei Mikhailovich Yakunin
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.
081468-0391430 3663
EXAMINER
IPPOLITO, NICOLE MARIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2881
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/10/2016 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 ANDREI MIKHAILOVICH Y AKUNIN,
V ADIM YEVGENYEVICH BANINE,
JOHANNES HUBERTUS JOSEPHINA MOORS, and
LEONID AIZIKOVITCH SJMAENOK
Appeal2014-009791
Application 13/058,783
Technology Center 2800
Before CHUNG K. PAK, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-009791
Application 13/058,783
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of
claims 1-12 and 14--20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appellants' invention is directed to a spectral purity filter with
improved functionality via optimized cooling using a high emissivity layer
for extreme ultraviolet light (EUV) radiation lithographic apparatus (Spec.
iTiT 2, 56).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A spectral purity filter configured to transmit extreme ultraviolet
(EUV) radiation and to deflect non-EUV secondary electromagnetic
radiation, the spectral purity filter comprising a body of material having a
transmissivity for EUV radiation in the range of 5-20 nm of at least
20% and a layer of material having reflection to the non-EUV secondary
electromagnetic radiation of at least 50 %, said layer being located on a
radiation incident side of the body.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
1. Claims 1--4, 6-9, 11, 12, and 14--16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Van De Kerhof et al. (US 2004/0114120
Al, published June 17, 2004) ("Van De Kerhof').
2. Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Van De Kerhof in view of Van Herpen et al. (US 2006/0245058
Al, published Nov. 2, 2006) ("Van Herpen").
3. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Van De Kerhof.
4. Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Van De Kerhofin view ofBanine et al. (US 2006/0221440 Al,
published Oct. 5, 2006) (Banine").
2
Appeal2014-009791
Application 13/058,783
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
REJECTION (1): § 102
Appellants argue that Van De Kerhof does not disclose that any of the
layers or substrate of the radiation sensor has a transmissivity for EUV
radiation in the range of 5-20 nm of at least 20% as recited by claim 1
(Reply Br. 2; App. Br. 8).
The Examiner finds that Van De Kerhof teaches the disputed
limitation in i-f 46 and Figures 5a to 6 (Final Act. 3).
Van De Kerhof discloses in i-f 46 that the radiation sensor 2 includes a
photoconversion layer 5 to enable the detection of EUV light having a
wavelength of 13.5 nm. Figures 5a and 5b of Van De Kerhof show the
modeled optical response (i.e., transmission, reflection, and absorption) for
aluminum irradiated by radiation in the DUV region of 190-250 nm and
irradiated by secondary radiation in the visible light range (i-f 56). Figures 6a
and 6b shows a measured optical response (i.e., transmission, reflection, and
absorption) for a range of wavelengths in the actinic wavelength area (i.e.,
150-248 nm) for two metal layers of interest (i.e., chromium and aluminum)
(i-f 5 8).
Though the Examiner cites these portions of Van De Kerhof, the
Examiner does not explain why Figures 5a, 5b, 6a, and 6b show a
transmission of at least 20% or 50% (claim 14) for EUV having a
wavelength from 5 to 20 nm. The Examiner finds that the deep ultraviolet
(DUV) and vacuum ultraviolet (VUV) ranges overlap with the EUV range
required by claim 1 (Ans. 8-9). However, the Examiner's finding is not
substantiated with any evidence, and is actually contradicted by Van De
Kerhofs disclosure. See Van De Kerhofi-fi-113, 27 (disclosing that DUV
3
Appeal2014-009791
Application 13/058,783
typically ranges from 250-190 nm, and VUV typically ranges from 195-
120 nm). Although Van De Kerhofi-f 27, may teach that the term "radiation"
as used in the publication includes EUV, the Examiner has not established
that Van De Kerhof teaches the claimed EUV transmission as recited in
claim 1 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
On this record, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 6-
9, 11, 12, and 14--16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Van De Kerhof.
REJECTIONS (2) through (4): § 103
The Examiner does not rely upon Van Herpen or Banine to cure the
argued deficiency with regard to EUV transmission in Van De Kerhof (Final
Act. 6-7). Accordingly, rejections (2) through (4) are faulty for the same
reasons discussed supra with regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection.
On this record, we reverse the Examiner's§ 103 rejections of
claims 5, 10, and 17-20.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
ORDER
REVERSED
4