Ex Parte Lammers et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2016

12898084 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/898,084 10/05/2010
909 7590 07/27/2016
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV)
PO Box 10500
McLean, VA 22102
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jeroen Herman LAMMERS
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.
081468-0388736 3161
EXAMINER
SHAFI, LEITH S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2016 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 JEROEN HERMAN LAMMERS, 1
Sander Frederik Wuister, Yvonne Wendela Kruijt-Stegeman,
and Roelof Koo le
Appeal2014-0055102
Application 12/898,084
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, MARK NAGUMO, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Jeroen Herman Lammers, Sander Frederik Wuister, Yvonne Wendela
Kruijt-Stegeman, and Roelof Koo le ("Lammers") timely appeal under
1 The real party in interest is identified as ASML Netherlands B.V. (Appeal
Brief, filed 2 December 2013 ("Br."), 2.)
2 Hearing scheduled for 6 July 2016 waived. (Communication received 27
June 2016.)
Appeal2014-005510
Application 12/898,084
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection3 of claims 15-22 and 25-27. 4
We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6. We reverse.
OPINION
A. Introduction 5
The subject matter on appeal relates to an apparatus for imprint
lithography. The '084 Specification teaches that imprint lithography is
being developed for nanometer or submicron features in lithographic
processes as an alternative to costly and technologically difficult optical
methods. (Spec. 1 [0003]-[0004].) In an imprint lithography process, an
imprint template is impressed onto a surface bearing an imprintable liquid
medium that can be cured by actinic radiation. (Id. at 2 [0006].) In the
words of the Specification, "[g]aps between the droplets [of the imprintable
liquid medium] may lead to voids at the interface between the patterned
surface and the imprintable liquid medium which may eventually disappear
as they become filled with the imprintable liquid medium." (Id.) Waiting
for these gaps to fill is said to be one of the most time consuming steps,
"typically in excess of 2 seconds." (Id. at 3 [0009].) It is said to be
3 Office action mailed 2 July 2013 ("Final Rejection"; cited as "FR"). See
also the Advisory Action mailed 13 September 2013 ("Adv.")
4 Copending claims 1 and 9-14 have been withdrawn from consideration,
and remaining copending claims 23 and 24 have been objected to by the
Examiner; none of these claims are before us. (Advisory Action 1 § 15;
mailed 13 September 2013; "Adv.")
5 Application 12/898,084, Imprint lithography apparatus and method,
filed 5 October 2010, claiming the benefit of 61/249,351, filed 7 October
2009. We refer to the '"084 Specification," which we cite as "Spec."
2
Appeal2014-005510
Application 12/898,084
desirable to minimize these waiting times in order to improve the overall
efficiency of the method (id. at 4 [001 OJ).
The inventors seek patent protection for an apparatus that is said to
accomplish this goal by monitoring optically the scattering of light from the
interfaces between the gaps or voids and the imprintable liquid medium as
the imprint template is impressed into the imprintable liquid medium, and
calculating when the filling will be completed.
Claim 15 is representative of the dispositive issues and reads:
An imprint apparatus comprising:
an imprint holder configured to hold an imprint template,
the imprint template having a patterned surface to
pattern an imprintable liquid medium on a substrate by
contact between the patterned surface and the
imprintable liquid medium,
a substrate table configured to hold the substrate,
a detector configured
to generate a signal derived from light emergent from
an interface between the imprintable liquid medium and
the patterned surface,
during a filling period as imprintable liquid medium
substantially fills the recesses in the patterned surface, and
a computer configured
to derive data from the signal concerning one or more
voids at the interface during the filling period, and
to derive an estimated end time for the filling period
from a relationship between the data and time.
(Claims App., Br. 28; some indentation, paragraphing, and emphasis added.)
Remaining independent claim 20 recites a similar requirement for a
computer. (Claims App., Br. 29.)
3
Appeal2014-005510
Application 12/898,084
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection6 :
A. Claims 15-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in
view of Kolesnychenko. 7
Al. Claims 20-22 and 25-27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of
Kolesnychenko and Chou. 8
B. Discussion
Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record.
To be anticipatory, a reference must describe, either expressly or
inherently, each and every claim limitation, arranged or combined as
required by the claimed invention, and enable one of skill in the art to
practice an embodiment of the claimed invention without undue
experimentation. See, e.g., In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed.
Cir. 2009).
The Examiner makes inconsistent findings regarding the teachings of
Kolesnychenko. First, the Examiner finds that Kolesnychenko describes a
computer "configured to ... derive an estimated end time for the filling
period from a relation between the data and the time." (FR, sentence
bridging 2-3; Adv. 2; Ans. 3, 11. 1--4; each citing Kolesnychenko [0074]).
Second, the Examiner finds that "Kolesnychenko does not teach that the
6 Examiner's Answer mailed 7 February 2014 ("Ans.").
7 Aleksey Yurievch Kolesnychenko et al., Imprint lithography, U.S. Patent
Application Publication 2006/0268256 Al (2006).
8 Stephen Y. Chou and Zhaoning Yu, Imprint lithography with improved
monitoring and control and apparatus therefor, U.S. Patent Application
Publication 2005/0037143 Al (2005).
4
Appeal2014-005510
Application 12/898,084
computer is configured to calculate an estimated end time required for the
imprintable liquid medium to substantially fill the recesses in the patterned
surface from the data derived from the signal generated by the detector."
(FR 4; Adv. 4; Ans. 4, 11. 18-22; each discussing independent claim 20.)
As Lammers urges (Br. 5---6), review of Kolesnychenko does not
reveal substantial evidence supporting the Examiner's findings that
Kolesnychenko teaches a computer configured in the manner required by
claim 15. Kolesnychenko does disclose in paragraph [0074] detection of an
optical signal originating from scattering from the flow of an imprintable
material into the gaps between the surface of an imprint template and a
substrate. Kolesnychenko further discloses that the intensity value may be
compared by controller C with a threshold value indicating that the flow has
been completed. There is no issue9 over the capability of a person having
ordinary skill in the art to modify an apparatus such as the one described by
Kolesnychenko to estimate the completion time of filling. But the Examiner
has not directed our attention to any disclosure in Kolesnychenko that the
apparatus has been programmed to calculate the end time of the filling
period.
The Examiner finds that Chou makes up for the deficiencies of
Kolesnychenko. (FR 4; Adv. 4; Ans., para. bridging 3--4.) In particular, the
Examiner finds that "Chou teaches that it is possible to detect and control the
filling rate." (Id., citing Chou [0081] and Chou, Fig. 15.) Indeed, Chou
states that "Fig. 15 shows that this metro logy is capable of providing in situ
9 Assuming, for example, that controller C is a general purpose
programmable computer-for several decades, now, an unremarkable
assumption.
5
Appeal2014-005510
Application 12/898,084
process control in imprint by detecting the effect of the change in processing
conditions as they occur during the imprint process." (Chou [0081 ].) Again,
however, the Examiner has not directed our attention to any teaching or
suggestion in Chou regarding the desirability of calculating when the filling
will be complete. On the present record, the only suggestion for the
desirability of such a calculation-and hence of the desirability of an
apparatus programmed to have that capability---comes from
the '084 Specification.
In a homely analogy, many modem home kitchen ovens are equipped
with a temperature probe that can be inserted into a roast or other item, and
the oven is programmed to tum the heating element off when the roast
reaches a specified temperature. However, it is not common for these ovens
to be programmed to display the estimated time to completion of cooking.
Although it would be, presumably, within the skill of the ordinary oven
designer to provide such a program; without a prior-art based motivation; an
oven modified to estimate the remaining cooking time would not be obvious.
We reverse the rejections of record.
C. Order
It is ORDERED that the rejection of claims 15-22 and 25-27 is
reversed.
REVERSED
6