Ex Parte Chien et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 1, 2019

14168114 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/168,114 01/30/2014
42717 7590 03/05/2019
HA YNES AND BOONE, LLP
IP Section
2323 Victory A venue
Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75219
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shang-Chieh Chien
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.
2013-0199/24061.24 7 6 5659
EXAMINER
PERSAUD, DEORAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2882
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/05/2019 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):
ipdocketing@haynesboone.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHANG-CHIEH CHIEN, JEN-HORNG CHEN, JUI-CHING WU,
CHIA-CHEN CHEN, HUNG-CHANG HSIEH, CHI-LUN LU, CHIA-HAO
YU, SHIH-MING CHANG, and ANTHONY YEN
Appeal2017-005550
Application 14/168, 114
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
maintained rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-6, 8-19, and 21
over Onvlee3 in view of Hirayanagi, 4 of claim 2 over Onvlee in view of
1 This decision cites to the following: the Specification filed January 30,
2014 ("Spec."), the Final Office Action dated February 10, 2016 ("Final
Act."), the Appeal Brief filed July 6, 2016 ("App. Br."), the Examiner's
Answer dated December 16, 2016 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed
February 15, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2 Appellant is Applicant, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company,
Ltd., also identified by Appellant as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
3 Onvlee et al., US 2015/0241797 Al, published August 27, 2015.
4 Hirayanagi, US 2008/0024751 Al, published January 31, 2008.
Appeal2017-005550
Application 14/ 168, 114
Hirayanagi and Sogard '739, 5 and of claim 7 in view ofOnvlee in view of
Hirayanagi and Sogard '525. 6 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant's invention relates to a lithography system including a
cleaning module. Spec., Abstract. Claims 1, 13, and 18 are independent.
Claims 1 and 13 are directed to lithography systems. Claim 18 is directed to
a method using the lithography system.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A lithography system, comprising:
an exposing module configured to perform a lithography
exposing process using a mask secured on a mask stage,
wherein the mask stage includes a recess configured to expose a
surface of the mask for cleaning; and
a cleaning module integrated in the exposing module and
configured to clean the mask using an attraction mechanism, the
cleaning module including a cleaning structure configured to
introduce the attraction mechanism into the recess of the mask
stage to clean the exposed surface of the mask secured
thereupon.
App. Br. 24.
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence and opposing contentions of
Appellant and the Examiner, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred
5 Sogard, US 2006/0162739 Al, published July 27, 2006.
6 Sogard US 2007/0079525 Al, published April 12, 2007.
2
Appeal2017-005550
Application 14/ 168, 114
reversibly in rejecting claims for obviousness over the cited prior art, except
as to claims 5, 10, and 17.
Onvlee relates to a lithographic apparatus that provides for cleaning
particles off of a surface of a patterning device and/ or a support for the
patterning device. Onvlee, Abstract. The Examiner relies on Onvlee for
disclosing "an exposing module configured to perform a lithography
exposing process using a mask (MA) secured on a mask stage (MT; as
shown in Figs. 1-3)" (Final Act. 2) and "a cleaning module integrated in the
exposing module and configured to clean the mask using an attraction
mechanism" (id. at 3 ( citing Onvlee ,r,r 94--98, Fig. 9); see also Ans. 3--4
(citing Onvlee ,r,r 86, 94--98, Figs. 6-9)). The Examiner relies on cleaning
system 800, including cleaning layer 802, and determines that the disclosed
"[ c ]leaning system 800 may include other components as well[,] such as
support structures ... and/or actuating systems" and that the system may
have "a sticky surface designed to capture particles present on the backside
or patterned surface of [the] patterning device in situ." Final Act. 3. The
Examiner highlights that Onvlee explicitly discloses cleaning the reticle after
its loading onto the mask stage, as one of two alternatives, cleaning the
reticle on the mask stage or removing it from the mask stage to clean it.
Ans. 3 (citing Onvlee ,r,r 85, 98).
Hirayanagi also relates to a lithographic apparatus. Hirayanagi,
Abstract. The Examiner relies on Hirayanagi for disclosing a reticle 7 (mask)
stage which "defines a recess or the like that receives the reticle wherein the
recess also defines an opening in the radiation direction of the exposure
7 The terms reticle and mask are interchangeable, as Hirayanagi notes in
paragraph 4.
3
Appeal2017-005550
Application 14/ 168, 114
beam." Final Act. 3 (citing Hirayanagi ,r 36, Figs. 1-3); see also Ans. 4.
The Examiner further relies on Hirayanagi for teaching that the recessed
stage prevents the reticle (mask) "from falling from the reticle stage even
during a power failure." Id. (citing Hirayanagi ,r 10).
The Examiner determines that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have found it obvious to use a mask stage as taught by Hirayanagi in the
system of Onvlee because it is a suitable alternative that prevents the mask
from falling from the mask stage, even during a power failure. Id. The
Examiner, thus, concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art armed with the
knowledge of the cited prior art would have been led to the claimed subject
matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Ans. 4
Appellant contends that the Examiner has erred, offering arguments as
to each independent claim, and to dependent claims 3, 4, 5, 10, 14, and 17.
See generally App. Br.; Reply Br.
As to independent claim 1, Appellant contends that neither Onvlee nor
Hirayanagi teaches a cleaning module to clean a mask secured on a mask
stage, and that no motivation has been established to accordingly modify the
prior art. App. Br. 11-14. Appellant cites to paragraph 98 of Onvlee and
argues that it teaches that "the patterning device 302 is removed from the
clamp structure before being cleaned by Onvlee's cleaning system 800" (id.
at 12; see also id. at 13 (quoting Onvlee ,r 98 with emphasis)).
Appellant's contention that Onvlee does not disclose a cleaning
module to clean a mask secured on a mask stage is untenable because, as
highlighted by the Examiner, Onvlee teaches both cleaning a mask while
secured on a mask stage and removing the mask for cleaning. See, e.g.,
Onvlee ,r 98.
4
Appeal2017-005550
Application 14/ 168, 114
Appellant raises additional arguments in the Reply Brief that were not
raised in the Appeal Brief. Compare Reply Br. 5-10, with App. Br.
Appellant first argues that even if Onvlee's paragraph 98 "teaches the
initial cleaning is performed after the patterning device 302 is loaded into a
lithographic apparatus," this "is not necessarily equivalent to a mask stage."
Reply Br. 6 ( emphasis omitted). Appellant also argues about the spatial
orientation of the structure discussed in paragraph 98. 6-7 (citing Onvlee,
Fig. 9). Appellant has not provided an explanation establishing good cause
for why these arguments could not have been raised in the Appeal Brief, as
they address positions relied on by the Examiner not only in the Answer, but
also in the Final Office Action. Final Act. 2-3. We deem these arguments
waived for purposes of the present appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.41(b)(2). "[A]n
issue not raised by an [ A ]ppellant in its opening brief ... is waived." Cf
Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Appl 'ns S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir.
2006) ( citations and internal quotations omitted).
Appellant also argues, regarding paragraph 85 ( and Figure 6) of
Onvlee, that the embodiment does not show a mask stage. Reply Br. 7-8.
This argument is not persuasive of reversible error because it fails to account
for the rejection as set forth by the Examiner grounded on the combination
of Onvlee and Hirayanagi, including disclosure relating to embodiments
with a mask stage. See, e.g., In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA
197 6) (A reference's disclosure is not limited to its preferred embodiments,
but is available for all that it discloses and suggests to one of ordinary skill
in the art.).
Appellant, citing the Examiner's Answer, also argues that the
Examiner erred in relying on Hirayanagi's paragraph 36 and Figures 1-3.
5
Appeal2017-005550
Application 14/ 168, 114
Reply Br. 8-10 (citing Ans. 4). The Examiner, however, relied on
Hirayanagi in the same manner in the Final Office Action ( compare Final
Act. 3 (citing Hirayanagi ,r 36, Figs. 1-3), with Ans. 4 (citing Hirayanagi
,r 36, Figs. 1-3)), and Appellant provides no good reason why this argument
was not raised in the Appeal Brief (see generally Reply Br.). We deem the
arguments waived.
Finally, Appellant also argues that the rejection is grounded on
impermissible hindsight. Reply Br. 10. This argument, likewise, is waived
because it is not timely.
As to independent claim 13, Appellant also contends that "Onvlee
does not appear to teach whether its cleaning system is within the enclosed
chamber" and argues that the Examiner does not address the issue in the
Final Office Action. App. Br. 15.
Appellant's argument is unpersuasive of reversible error because the
rejection is explicitly grounded on the cleaning module being integrated in
the exposing module in Onvlee as disclosed in, for example, paragraph 98.
Final Act. 2-3 (citing Onvlee ,r,r 94--98, Figs. 1-3, 9).
As to independent claim 18, Appellant also contends that the cleaning
in the cited references "is not performed while the mask is secured to the
mask stage, and while the cleaning module is within an opening in the mask
stage." App. Br. 16.
Appellant's argument as to the mask not being secured while it is
cleaned is unpersuasive of reversible error because, as discussed above,
Onvlee teaches cleaning the mask while it is secured to the mask stage.
As to the cleaning module being within an opening in the mask stage,
the Examiner relied on Hirayanagi's Figure 2 and paragraph 36, which
6
Appeal2017-005550
Application 14/ 168, 114
describes Figure 2, and these disclose a mask 1 OOa secured to a mask stage
201 within a recess. Final Act. 3; Hirayanagi ,r 36, Fig. 2. Appellant's
skeletal contention in the Appeal Brief does not apprise us of any error.
Cf In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (merely reciting
what a claim recites and/ or providing a skeletal argument that the prior art
references do not disclose or suggest certain claim limitations is not an
argument that requires our separate consideration).
Turning to dependent claims 3, 4, and 14, Appellant argues that the
combination does not teach claim 3 's limitation "wherein the cleaning
structure includes a carrier substrate and the attraction mechanism is
disposed on a top surface of the carrier substrate" because "Onvlee teaches a
sticky tape 502 disposed on rolls 504a/504b ... as the cleaning system" and
"Onvlee does not mention a 'carrier substrate' as a part of the cleaning
structure, let alone ... that an 'attraction mechanism is disposed on a top
surface of the carrier substrate."' App. Br. 17 ( citing Onvlee, Fig. 6).
Appellant also argues that the Examiner's reliance on Onvlee's Figure 9 in
addition to Figure 6 would require disposing elements contrary to how they
are arranged in the claim. Reply Br. 10-11. Appellant argues that
combination does not teach claims 4 and 14' s limitation "wherein the carrier
substrate is a mask substrate having a shape and dimensions of the mask"
because "Onvlee does not even teach a carrier substrate as a part of the
cleaning structure, let alone a carrier substrate 'having a shape and
dimensions of the mask."' App. Br. 18, 20.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive of reversible error because
they fail to address the Examiner's reasoning grounded on Onvlee' s relevant
teaching (Final Act. 3; Ans. 5 (citing Onvlee ,r,r 94--96)), and do not take
7
Appeal2017-005550
Application 14/ 168, 114
into account that "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton" (KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
421 (2007)). As to Appellant's further argument that it is not sufficient that
Onvlee teaches that the cleaning layer can be substantially the same
dimensions as the mask because it is possible for the carrier substrate and the
cleaning layer to have different shapes and/or sizes (Reply Br. 11-12), we
find it unpersuasive that the Examiner erred because the reason for the
carrier substrate is to support the cleaning layer and it reasonably does so by
its presence, leading to it having the same shape and size as the cleaning
layer, which, as explained by the Examiner, is substantially the same
dimensions as the mask (Ans. 5). In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA
1968) ("[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take
into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom.").
Turning to dependent claim 5, Appellant argues that the combination
does not teach the limitation "wherein the attraction mechanism includes a
material with non-polar chains and polar compound" (App. Br. 18-19;
Reply Br. 12) and that the Examiner's reliance on Onvlee's disclosed
"KAPTON or polyimide materials" is insufficient (Reply Br. 12).
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has failed to establish this
limitation. The reliance on Onvlee' s paragraph 85 as disclosing that "the
layer of tape 'may be a sticky tape such as, for example, a KAPTON or
polyimide tape that leaves behind no residue' or 'layer of tape may be an
insulating material that is charged to attract particle contamination via
8
Appeal2017-005550
Application 14/ 168, 114
electrostatic interactions'" (Ans. 5---6) is not sufficient to establish that it
"includes a material with non-polar chains and polar compound."
Turning to dependent claims 10 and 1 7, we find that the Examiner has
failed to establish that the relied on combination teaches or suggests "a mask
library configured to hold a plurality of masks" ( claims 10 and 17) and either
"a mask handler designed to secure and transfer one of the plurality of
masks" ( claim 10) or "a mask handler configured for mask transferring"
( claim 17). See generally Final Act.; Ans.
For the reasons above, we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8,
9, 11-16, 18, 19, and 21 over Onvlee and Hirayanagi, but reverse the
rejection as to claims 5, 10, and 17.
Appellant argues for the patentability of claim 2, rejected over
Onvlee, Hirayanagi, and Sogard '739, and claim 7, rejected over Onvlee,
Hirayanagi, and Sogard '525, on the basis of the claims' dependency from
independent claim 1. App. Br. 21. The Examiner correctly observes that
Appellant provides no separate argument as to either claim 2 or claim 7.
Ans. 6-7.
Not being convinced of reversible error in the rejection of claim 1
over Onvlee and Hirayanagi, we are not apprised of reversible error in the
rejection of claims 2 and 7 in further view of Sogard '739 and Sogard '525,
respectively, and affirm the rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 6-9, 11-16, 18, 19, and 21 is
AFFIRMED, but the rejection of claims 5, 10, and 17 is REVERSED.
9
Appeal2017-005550
Application 14/ 168, 114
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10