Synopsys, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 1, 2021

2020003755 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 2021)

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.
15/488,345 04/14/2017 Hua Song SNPS-2489US02-CON 5583
36503 7590 06/01/2021
PVF -- SYNOPSYS, INC
c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP
2820 FIFTH STREET
DAVIS, CA 95618-7759
EXAMINER
DOAN, NGHIA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2851
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2021 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):
uspto-incoming@parklegal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HUA SONG, CHENG EN WU, and
JAMES P. SHIELY
Appeal 2020-003755
Application 15/488,345
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–18. (Final Act. 1.) We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 The term “Appellant” to refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Synopsys, Inc.
(Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal 2020-003755
Application 15/488,345

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention is generally directed to a 3D resist profile etch-
bias model. (Spec. ¶ 5.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing
instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the
computer to perform a method to determine a set of mask
patterns for printing a set of target patterns by using a
semiconductor manufacturing process, wherein the
semiconductor manufacturing process includes a
photolithography process and an etching process, the method
comprising:
determining a set of retargeted patterns based on the set of
target patterns;
and
determining the set of mask patterns based on the set of
retargeted patterns by optimizing an objective function that
comprises a measure of a deviation of a predicted three-
dimensional (3D) resist profile with respect to a desired 3D
resist profile.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Unal US 2016/0078166 A1 Mar. 17, 2016
REJECTION
Claims 1–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated
by Unal. (Final Act. 5.)

Appeal 2020-003755
Application 15/488,345

3
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has
long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged
error in the examiner’s rejections . . . ” citing Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d
1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)).
After considering the evidence presented in this appeal and each of
Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies
reversible error. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons
expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following
primarily for emphasis.
Appellant’s arguments are limited to independent claim 1.
Consequently, we will limit our discussion to this claim and all other claims
stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013).
Appellant argues Unal does not anticipate the claimed invention
because Unal does not disclose optimizing an objective function that
comprises a measure of a deviation of a predicted three dimensional (3D)
resist profile with respect to a desired 3D resist profile as required by the
claimed invention. Appellant argues Unal discloses a deviation of the
modeled geometry from the target mask layout in a 2D shape which is not
the same as a 3D resist profile. (Appeal Br. 15; Unal ¶ 11, FIG. 11B.)
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. We
adopt the Examiner’s reasoning provided in the Answer. (Ans. 5–7.)
It is recognized that the mask layout is utilized for determining the
resist profile, however, Unal discloses the use of a resist model to predict the
Appeal 2020-003755
Application 15/488,345

4
3-D resist geometry in the x, y, and z directions in position space. (Unal ¶¶
59–60.) Unal discloses 3D resist modeling that includes adjusting /
compensating for deviation of modeled geometry from a target mask layout
including the steps of modeling based on the resist contour and resist profile
of the mask layout in x-y plane and changes in the z direction. (Unal ¶¶ 12–
14; Fig. 3, elements 310, 320.)
Appellant argues the Examiner’s reliance upon Unal’s ¶ 112 is in
error because the geometry of the masking layer 138 is not the 3-D profile of
the resist 134 and there is no basis to assert that step 340 in Unal has any
knowledge of the resist contour in the resist profile that was calculated in
step 320. (Reply Br. 5–6.)
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. It is recognized that in the
lithographic manufacture of semiconductor devices masks are utilized to
create the pattern on the desired resist product. (Unal ¶ 3.) The flow diagram
depicted in figure 3 evidences that step 320 (resist profile) was utilized for
determination of the mask profile and arrangement. Moreover, in view of the
fact that the masks are utilized for development of the final resist product,
the predictive and actual resist profile must be utilized to determine if the
masks utilized in the process have the proper layout.
For the foregoing reasons and those the Examiner presents we sustain
the appealed rejection.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–18 is AFFIRMED.

Appeal 2020-003755
Application 15/488,345

5
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–18 102(a)(2) Unal 1–18
RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED