Ex Parte Shibazaki

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 11, 2015

11896448 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111896,448 08/31/2007
25944 7590 12/15/2015
OLIFF PLC
P.O. BOX 320850
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22320-4850
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yuichi Shibazaki
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.
133757 5670
EXAMINER
RIDDLE, CHRISTINA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2882
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/15/2015 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):
OfficeAction25944@oliff.com
jarmstrong@oliff.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUICHI SHIBAZAKI
Appeal2014-000716
Application 11/896,448
Technology Center 2800
Before HUNG H. BUI, JON M. JURGOV AN, and KEVIN C. TROCK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 222-289, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM. 2
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Nikon Corporation.
App. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellant's Appeal Brief filed May 29, 2013
("App. Br."); Reply Brief filed October 2, 2013 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's
Answer mailed August 16, 2013 ("Ans."); Final Office Action mailed
November 20, 2012 ("Final Act."); and the original Specification filed
December 26, 2007 ("Spec.").
Appeal2014-000716
Application 11/896,448
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's Invention
Appellant's invention relates to a lithographic apparatus for
manufacturing integrated circuits (ICs), including: a measurement (encoder)
system including multiple heads (encoders) to measure position information
of a movable body within a predetermined plane, and a main controller to
perform the correction of measurement errors associated with switching
between heads (encoders) based on position information of the movable
body in directions of three degree of freedom, including X-axis (1st) and Y-
axis (2nd) directions and a rotational direction orthogonal to the X-axis and
Y-axis (1st and 2nd) directions. Spec. 4:21-3 :20, 8: 11-20, 36: 15-18, 44: 1---6,
62:6-26, 94:3-15, 146:16-24, 208:18-27, 216: 24--27, Figs. 1, 6, llA-llB,
22A-22B, and Abstract.
Claims on Appeal
Claims 222 and 256 are independent. Claim 222 is illustrative of
Appellant's invention and is reproduced with disputed limitations
emphasized below:
222. An exposure apparatus that exposes an object with
an energy beam, the apparatus comprising:
a movable body that holds the object and is movable at
least in first and second directions which are orthogonal in a
predetermined plane;
an encoder system in which one of a grating section and a
head unit is arranged on a surface of the movable body where
the object is held and the other of the grating section and the
head unit is arranged facing the surface of the movable body,
and which measures positional information of the movable
body in the predetermined plane by at least a first head that
faces the grating section of a plurality of heads of the head unit,
2
Appeal2014-000716
Application 11/896,448
the at least the first head of the plurality of heads used for the
measurement being switched during the movement of the
movable body; and
a controller that decides positional information to be
measured by at least a second head of the plurality of heads
after the switching based on positional information measured
by the at least the first head of the plurality of heads before the
switching and positional information of the movable body in a
direction different from the first and second directions on the
switching,
wherein the direction different from the first and second
directions is a rotational direction about a predetermined axis
including an axis orthogonal to the first and second directions.
App. Br. A-1 (Claims App.).
Farrand
Yoshii
Matsumoto
Taniguchi
Moriyama
Loopstra
Pril
Evidence Considered
us 4,215,938
us 5,610,715
us 5,625,453
us 5,650,840
US 2003/0011771 Al
US 2006/0227309 Al
US 2007/0051160 Al
Examiner's Rejections
Aug. 5, 1980
Mar. 11, 1997
Apr. 29, 1997
July 22, 1997
Jan. 16,2003
Oct. 12, 2006
Mar. 8, 2007
(1) Claims 222-227, 231-232, 245-248, 254, 256, 257, 259-262,
265, 279-282, and 288 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pril and Loopstra. Final Act. 2-22.
(2) Claims 228-230 and 262-264 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Pril, Loopstra, and Y oshii. Final Act.
23-26.
3
Appeal2014-000716
Application 11/896,448
(3) Claims 233, 235-237, 250, 267, 269-271, and 284 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pril, Loopstra,
and Matsumoto. Final Act. 26-30.
(4) Claims 234 and 268 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Pril, Loopstra, Matsumoto, and Farrand. Final Act.
31.
(5) Claims 238-244, 251-253, 272-278, and 285-287 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pril, Loopstra,
and Taniguchi. Final Act. 32--40.
(6) Claims 249 and 283 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Pril, Loopstra, and Taniguchi. Final Act. 40--41.
(7) Claims 255 and 289 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Pril, Loopstra, and Moriyama. Final Act. 41--42.
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellant's arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 222 and 256
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pril and Loopstra. In
particular, the appeal turns on whether the Examiner's combination of Pril
and Loopstra teaches or suggests the disputed functions of a controller, i.e.,
decides positional information to be measured by a positional
information to be measured by at least a second head of the
plurality of heads after the switching based on positional
information measured by the at least [a] first head of the
plurality of heads before the switching and positional
information of the movable body in a direction different from
the first and second directions [i.e., a rotational direction ...
orthogonal to the first and second directions],
as recited in claims 222 and 256. App. Br. 8-15; Reply Br. 1-8.
4
Appeal2014-000716
Application 11/896,448
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 222 and 256, the Examiner finds
Pril discloses an exposure [lithography] apparatus, shown in Figure 1,
equipped with all Appellant's claimed components, including (1) a movable
body, (2) an encoder system with grating and multiple heads (sensors) to
measure positional information of the movable body in a predetermined
plane in X-axis (1st) and Y-axis (2nd) directions, via switching between heads
and (3) a controller to decide on positional information of the movable body
in first and second directions, via switching (take over) between heads. Ans.
3--4 (citing Pril i-fi-139, 41--42, 57, 62, 69, 75, 79, 85, 92, 95, 112, and Fig. 1,
Figs. 2A-2B "positional information along X-axis direction", Figs. 3A-3C,
4A--4C, 5A-5C "positional information along both X-axis and Y-axis
directions", Figs. 6A-6E "positional information along X-axis and Z-axis
direction).
The Examiner acknowledges that Pril does not teach, but relies on
Loopstra for teaching measurement of "positional information of a movable
body in a rotational direction about a predetermined axis including an axis
orthogonal to the first and second directions" in the context of positional
measurement of a movable body in directions of three degrees of freedom,
including a X-axis direction, a Y-axis direction, and a rotational direction
about the Z-axis (similarly disclosed by Appellant) in order to support the
conclusion of obviousness, i.e., "to provide a high accuracy displacement
measuring system for a lithography apparatus that can provide continuous
measurement of the position of a support structure." Id. at 5 (citing Loopstra
i-fi-121, 48, 50, 63, 88, and Figs. 2-3).
5
Appeal2014-000716
Application 11/896,448
Appellant presents several arguments against the Examiner's
combination of Pril and Loopstra. In particular, Appellant argues Pril only
teaches measurement directions in an X direction. App. Br. 9--10 (citing Pril
i-fi-1 57, 82-85). As such, Appellant argues: (1) a skilled artisan would not
interpret the geometry of the measurement system of Pril to include
directions other than the X direction, and (2) the sensors of Pril are not
initialized based on any information in directions other than the X direction.
App. Br. 8-11; Reply Br. 2--4.
In addition, Appellant also argues there is no reason to modify Pril to
incorporate features of Loopstra because: (3) the teachings of Loopstra are
incompatible with the lithography apparatus of Pril, ( 4) the teachings of
Loopstra do not correspond to Appellant's claimed features, and (5) the
positional information disclosed in Pril and Loopstra are different. App. Br.
11-15; Reply Br. 5-7. According to Appellant, Loopstra discloses the
"sensor take-over" to maintain continuous measurement of a single sensor
from one grid plate to another grid plate by using a signal from another
sensor, and does not disclose positional measurement of a first sensor that is
taken over by a second sensor as disclosed in Pril and, as such, does not
disclose switching from one sensor to another sensor. App. Br. 12-13
(emphasis in original).
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive. Rather, we find the
Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellant's arguments
supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 43-52. As such, we adopt
the Examiner's findings and explanations provided therein. Id. For
additional emphasis, we note Appellant's arguments are predicated a narrow
reading of obviousness under KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 418
6
Appeal2014-000716
Application 11/896,448
(2007) and improper attacks on Pril and Loopstra when the rejection is based
on the combination. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) ("one
cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the
rejection is based on a combination of references").
The proper test for obviousness is not whether the prior art references
disclose all elements of the claimed invention; rather, what the combined
teachings would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See
In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In such an analysis,
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim need not be identified because the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account.
See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see also 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."). The level of ordinary skill in
the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. See Okajima v.
Bourdeau, 261F.3d1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d
1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91(CCPA1978).
Those persons "must be [also] presumed to know something" about the art
"apart from what the references disclose." In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516
(CCPA 1962).
For example, although Pril discloses a measurement system equipped
with an array of sensors arranged in one degree of freedom, i.e., along X-
axis direction, Pril also discloses:
7
Appeal2014-000716
Application 11/896,448
[i]t should be noted that the present invention may equally be
applied in a measurement system arranged to measure a
position in more than one degree of freedom. As an example,
the present invention can be applied in a 2D encoder
measurement system. Such a system may comprise a plurality
of sensors constructed and arranged to co-operate with a two-
dimensional grating in order to determine the position of an
object in both X-direction and Y-direction. In order to perform
the take over process according to the present invention, a
relationship as described in eq. 9 or 10 can be established for
both directions.
Pril i-f 114.
As an extension of Pril, Loopstra teaches a similar measurement
system equipped with an array of sensors arranged in at least three degrees
of freedom, i.e., along both X-axis and Y-axis (first and second) directions
as well as "a rotational direction about a predetermined axis including an
axis orthogonal to the first and second directions" in the manner recited in
Appellanfs independent claims 222 and 256.
Contrary to Appellant's arguments, a skilled artisan is presumed to
have the technical competence and experience working in the area of
lithography, including sufficient skill to arrange an array of sensors to
account in at least three degrees of freedom to accurately measure positional
information of a movable body along X-axis and Y-axis (first and second)
directions as well as "a rotational direction about a predetermined axis
including an axis orthogonal to the first and second directions" in the
manner recited in recited in Appellant's independent claims 222 and 256, as
the Examiner found. Ans. 46-50.
Regardless, measuring positional information of a movable body
along X-axis and Y-axis directions as well as a rotational direction would
8
Appeal2014-000716
Application 11/896,448
have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417
(2007). Appellant has not presented sufficient evidence or argument that
doing so would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over the prior
art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19). Nor has Appellant presented
evidence that any of their incorporations of known limitations yielded more
than expected results.
For the reasons set forth above, Appellant has not persuaded us of any
error in the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 222 and 256.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 222
and 256.
With respect to dependent claims 223-254 and 257-289, Appellant
presents no separate patentability arguments. App. Br. 16. For the same
reasons discussed, we also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claims 223-254 and 257-289.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred
in rejecting claims 222-289 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's final rejection of claims 222-
289.
9
Appeal2014-000716
Application 11/896,448
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 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
kme
10