Ex Parte Sun

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 7, 2019

12413350 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 7, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/413,350 03/27/2009
76362 7590 01/09/2019
ELECTRO SCIENTIFIC INDUSTRIES, INC.
13900 N.W. SCIENCE PARK DRIVE
PORTLAND, OR 97229
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yunlong Sun
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.
SR-214:USl (50001/214:1) 8862
EXAMINER
DUNNER, DIALLO IGWE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/09/2019 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):
ESILegal@esi.com
vermilyal@esi.com
eatonk@esi.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUNLONG SUN
Appeal2017-000225
Application 12/413,350
Technology Center 3700
Before GEORGE R. HOSKINS, BRADLEY B. BAY AT, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Yunlong Sun ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's decision rejecting all pending claims 1-6 in this application.
The Board has jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE. 2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Pursuant to Appellant's Request for Oral Hearing filed on September 28,
2016, the Board scheduled a hearing to occur on October 11, 2018.
Appellant then elected to waive the hearing, via a notice filed on August 1,
2018. Therefore, we decide this appeal without holding an oral hearing.
Appeal2017-000225
Application 12/413,350
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, recites:
1. A laser micromachining method comprising:
generating, using an ultrafast laser source, a burst of laser
pulses;
adjusting respective amplitudes of individual laser pulses
within the burst of laser pulses, using a high-speed optical
modulator, to produce a selectively shaped single burst envelope
for processing a target location of a workpiece, the target location
including a first layer overlying a second layer, wherein the first
layer and the second layer comprise different materials with
different laser processing characteristics, the adjusting
compnsmg:
selectively adjusting one or more first laser pulses
within the single burst envelope to a first amplitude based
on processing characteristics of a first layer at a target
location; and
selectively adjusting one or more second laser pulses
within the single burst envelope to a second amplitude
based on processing characteristics of a second layer at the
target location; and
directing the amplitude adjusted burst of laser pulses to the
target location, the single burst envelope of laser pulses
processing both the first layer and the second layer at the same
target location.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1-3 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as
anticipated by Kyusho (US 2002/0009843 Al, pub. Jan. 24, 2002).
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Kyusho and Cordingley (US 2002/0167581 Al, pub.
Nov. 14, 2002).
2
Appeal2017-000225
Application 12/413,350
Claims 1-3 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Gu (US 2006/0108337 Al, pub. May 25, 2006) and
Cheng (US 2005/0255715 Al, pub. Nov. 17, 2005).
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Gu, Cheng, and Cordingley.
ANALYSIS
A. Anticipation by Kyusho (Claims 1-3 and 6)
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Kyusho discloses a laser
micromachining method, including generating a burst of laser pulses, and
"adjusting of the burst of laser pulses, using a high-speed optical
modulator le ... , to produce a selectively shaped single burst envelope."
Final Act. 2 (citing Kyusho, Figs. 1 and 3,3 ,r,r 108, 115-116, 132, 141). The
Examiner further finds "K yusho discloses that the first pulse of the laser is
smaller to remove" a first layer, and "making the second pulse of the laser
larger removes" a second layer. Id. at 3 ( emphases added) ( citing K yusho
,r 115). As further explained in the Advisory Action, "Kyusho may not
produce the varying pulse widths and amplitudes as described by
[Appellant's] specification," but "Kyusho does teach of varying the multiple
laser pulses ... using a predetermined time frame of pulsing as recited in
claim 1" by controlling "parameters of the time intervals of the laser
irradiation and the pulse width of the laser." Adv. Act. 2.
Appellant argues Kyusho fails to disclose, as claimed, "adjusting
respective amplitudes of individual laser pulses within a burst of laser
3 The Examiner cites all of Kyusho's Figures 1-10, but the issues presented
on appeal are represented by Figures 1 and 3.
3
Appeal2017-000225
Application 12/413,350
pulses," including the specifically recited "selectively adjusting one or more
first laser pulses within the single burst envelope to a first amplitude" and
"selectively adjusting one or more second laser pulses within the single
burst envelope to a second amplitude." Appeal Br. 6-7. According to
Appellant, rather than implementing the claimed adjustment, "Kyusho
discloses 'slicing laser light pulses out of the string of mode-locked pulses
by using the optical shutter 2,"' such that "the string of laser pulses output
by Kyusho's laser have set amplitudes that Kyusho selects ('slices')." Id. at
7 (citing Kyusho, Figs. 3A-3C). Thus, in Appellant's view, Kyusho "does
not selectively adjust the amplitudes of the individual laser pulses within a
slice," and instead Kyusho "is limited to a predetermined set of amplitudes
and/or combinations of amplitudes" provided by "the initial shape of the
Q-switched pulse waveform." Id. at 7-8.
The Examiner's Answer maintains the rejection, by quoting the
Kyusho disclosure at some length, and emphasizing certain portions of the
quotations. Ans. 4--10 (quoting Kyusho ,r,r 110, 115, 134, 142-144). The
Answer, further, finds that Kyusho's apparatus "has the ability to increase
and decrease the amplitude of the laser pulses 20, prior to slicing." Id. at 7,
9 (emphasis added) (citing Kyusho ,r,r 141-143). Finally: "Since Kyusho
teaches the changing of the power of the modulating laser pulses and of the
intensity of the sliced laser pulses, the Examiner interprets that Kyusho reads
on all of the limitation of claim 1." Id. at 7 ( emphases added).
Upon consideration of the foregoing, we agree with Appellant.
Figure 1 ofKyusho is reproduced below:
4
Appeal2017-000225
Application 12/413,350
FYG.1
DD
lj
,, JO J; WZI.J'r.dttnf!th .
~ , ....... ,:.u: .. 1ect10n m1.n·or
:
i
Figure 1 illustrates Kyusho's laser-based repair apparatus. Kyusho ,r,r 118,
141. Q-switched mode-locked pulse laser oscillator head 1 produces stable
mode-locked pulses 20. Id. ,r,r 141-142. The Final Office Action makes
passing reference to modulator le (Final Act. 2), and the Answer states laser
pumping section 1 a is capable of increasing and decreasing the amplitude of
pulses 20, prior to slicing by optical shutter 2 (Ans. 7, 9).
However, we are unable to discern in the various Kyusho disclosures
cited by the Examiner any indication that laser oscillator head 1 is used, as
claimed, to "selectively adjust[]" the amplitudes of individual laser pulses 20
within the burst envelope of pulses 20. Appellant argues, and we agree, that
a broadest reasonable construction of the selective adjustment limitations in
claim 1 do not encompass adjusting "combinations of amplitudes" of pulses
in the burst. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 7-8. Rather, these limitations require the
ability to select one individual pulse within the burst, and adjust the
5
Appeal2017-000225
Application 12/413,350
amplitude of that pulse, independently of the amplitudes of the other pulses
in the burst, to produce a desired burst envelope profile. See Appellant's
Fig. 2; Spec. ,r,r 17, 37-38, 46.
The Examiner cites quite a large swath of Kyusho's disclosure
(paragraphs 108, 115, 116, 132, and 141-143, and all ofKyusho's
Figures 1-10), without adequately explaining any specific disclosure(s)
therein to support the Examiner's finding that laser oscillator head 1 is used
to selectively adjust the amplitudes of individual laser pulses 20 within the
burst envelope of pulses 20. See Final Act. 2; Ans. 7, 9. Based on our
review of the K yusho disclosure, it appears that laser oscillator head 1 is
limited to adjusting "peak power" or "intensity" of the laser, with such
adjustments applied to the entirety of the burst of pulses 20 produced by
laser oscillator head 1, rather selectively to individual pulses 20 within the
burst. Kyusho ,r,r 110, 134. That is, laser oscillator head 1 appears to be
limited to producing the burst envelope shape of pulses 20 illustrated in the
upper-right-hand comer of Figure 1. Thus, laser oscillator head 1 does not,
as claimed, selectively adjust the amplitudes of first and second pulses 20
within the burst envelope.
The burst envelope shape of pulses 20 produced by laser oscillator
head 1 travels to optical shutter 2, which is "used to slice a desired number
of pulses" from the burst of pulses 20. Id. ,r,r 141-142 (emphasis added).
According to Kyusho: "[B]y controlling the optical shutter 2 so that two
pulses or more can be sliced, multi-pulses can be produced." Id. ,r 143
(emphasis added). Figures 3A-3C ofKyusho illustrate three different
multi-pulses that can be sliced by optical shutter 2 from the burst of
pulses 20 generated by laser oscillator head 1. Id. ,r 144. In this way,
6
Appeal2017-000225
Application 12/413,350
"multi-pulses can be freely produced" for performing different material
processing tasks, such as for example "making the first pulse smaller to
remove only the CrO layer and by making the second pulse larger to remove
Cr layer" of a mask. Id. ,r 115.
However, we are persuaded by Appellant's argument that Kyusho
does not disclose the particular method of pulse generation recited in
claim 1. Specifically, Kyusho does not disclose, as claimed, "adjusting
respective amplitudes of individual laser pulses within the burst of laser
pulses," by "selectively adjusting" first and second pulse amplitudes "within
the single burst envelope." Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.) ( emphasis added).
Instead, Kyusho discloses generating different bursts of laser pulses by
slicing those bursts of pulses from a single, larger burst of pulses. This is
illustrated in Figures 3A-3C, reproduced below:
envelope of Q ·switc:hed
pulse waveform
position for slicing
I
d! __ AJJJL
'----···· ------·----~,..--·······--- - ........ _I
FIG.SA
position hr slicing
I
J
_JulUL _
\, ·---------~--- ----..._..,-······----------------' \_
FIG.SB
position for slicing
I
. jLi
_ ___,I /LJlJL_
FIG.SC
These Figures show three examples of slicing laser light pulses out of a
string (i.e., a burst) of nine pulses, shown at the top of each Figure, to form
different bursts of four pulses, shown at the bottom of each Figure. Kyusho
,r,r 120, 144.
7
Appeal2017-000225
Application 12/413,350
Kyusho's selective slicing of a sub-set of pulses from a larger burst of
pulses does not correspond to the claimed selective adjustment of individual
pulse amplitudes within the larger burst of pulses. The amplitude of each
pulse is the same before and after the slicing. See Figs. 3A-3C; Reply
Br. 3--4. Further, the Examiner has not established that Kyusho discloses
any further processing of the selected sub-set of pulses that would
correspond to the claimed selective adjustment of individual pulse
amplitudes within the sub-set of pulses. Thus, Kyusho's selective slicing of
a larger burst of pulses to form smaller bursts of pulses is not a selective
adjustment of individual pulse amplitudes within a single burst envelope.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claim 1 as anticipated by Kyusho. The Examiner's additional
consideration of dependent claims 2, 3, and 6 does not address the
deficiency of Kyusho's disclosure in relation to independent claim 1 (see
Final Act. 4), so we likewise do not sustain the rejection of those claims as
anticipated by Kyusho.
B. Obviousness over Kyusho and Cordingley (Claims 4 and 5)
The Examiner's additional consideration of dependent claims 4 and 5,
and of Cordingley, does not address the deficiency ofKyusho's disclosure in
relation to independent claim 1. See Final Act. 10-12. Therefore, for the
reasons provided above, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 5 as
having been obvious over Kyusho and Cordingley.
C. Obviousness over Gu and Cheng (Claims 1-3 and 6)
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Gu discloses a laser
micromachining method, including generating a burst of laser pulses. Final
8
Appeal2017-000225
Application 12/413,350
Act. 5 ( citing Gu, Figs. 1 and 4a, 4 ,r,r 24--25). The Examiner further finds
Gu's apparatus is "capable of adjusting of the burst of laser pulses, using a
acousto-optic modulator ... to produce a selectively shaped single burst
envelope for processing a target location" of a wafer work piece, including a
first depth overlying a second depth. Id. at 5, 12 (emphasis added) (citing
Gu ,r,r 17, 19, 58). The Examiner finds Gu's apparatus is further "capable
of' selectively adjusting first and second pulse amplitudes within a single
burst envelope, respectively based on processing characteristics of first and
second depths at the same target location. Id. at 5---6, 12-13 (citing Gu
,r,r 17, 19, 50-52, 60---66). The Examiner determines that, although Gu's
apparatus is capable of performing those functions, Gu does not expressly
disclose "the single burst envelope of laser pulses processing both the first
layer and the second layer at the same target location," or "adjusting
different pulses within the same burst based on different layers." Id. at 6,
12.
The Examiner cites Cheng as remedying Gu's failure to disclose
producing different bursts based on the different material properties of
different layers at the same target location in the work piece. Id. at 6, 13. In
particular, the Examiner finds Cheng discloses the patterning of a
multi-layered, thin film structure, by selectively ablating different layers in
the structure based on their thermal, strength, and absorption spectra. Id. at
6-7 ( citing Cheng, Abstract, ,r,r 1, 11, 19). Cheng does this, according to the
Examiner, "by using an ultra-fast laser programmed with the appropriate
wavelength (A.), pulse width (r), spectral width (L'i1v), spot size, bite size and
4 The Examiner cites all of Gu's Figures 1-9, but the issues presented on
appeal are represented by Figures 1 and 4a.
9
Appeal2017-000225
Application 12/413,350
fluency." Id.; Cheng ,r 11. The Examiner determines a person of ordinary
skill in the art:
would have clearly recognized that it is quite advantageous to
modify amplitude adjusted laser pulses processing both the first
depth and the second depth at the same target location of Gu in
view of amplitude adjusted laser pulses processing both the first
layer and the second layer at the same target location of Cheng
because Cheng restricting damage to the underlying layers of the
structure upon patterning of the layers during fabrication.
Id. at 7 (emphases added). The Advisory Action clarifies that "[a]lthough
Cheng does not disclose explicitly that the pulse amplitudes are adjusted,
Cheng does teach that ablation of the different layers is based on the
different thermal absorption characteristics of the layered material." Adv.
Act. 2 ( emphasis added).
Appellant argues that "none of the cited references teach or suggest
adjusting respective amplitudes of individual laser pulses within the burst of
laser pulses," as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 10-11 ( emphasis omitted).
In particular, according to Appellant, "Gu is ... silent as to adjusting
amplitudes of individual laser pulses within a burst based on different
layers," and the Advisory Action expressly finds Cheng does not disclose
adjustment of individual pulse amplitudes. Id. Appellant also argues the
Examiner has not articulated any reasoning having a rational underpinning
to explain why it would have been obvious, in view of Gu and Cheng, to
adjust respective amplitudes of individual laser pulses within Gu' s bursts of
laser pulses. Id. at 11.
The Examiner's Answer maintains that Gu is capable of adjusting the
amplitudes of individual laser pulses within a burst, to produce a selectively
shaped single burst envelope for processing different depths at a single target
10
Appeal2017-000225
Application 12/413,350
location in a work piece. Ans. 10-11 (citing Gu ,r,r 17, 19, 50-52, 60-66).
The Examiner's Answer further maintains that it would have been obvious
to modify Gu's method to include such functionality, based on Cheng's
disclosure. Id. at 11-13. In particular, the Examiner finds "Gu teaches that
the laser apparatus can be adjusted to consider the different pulse
characteristics necessary to mark the wafer at different depths." Id. at 13.
The Examiner cites Cheng's Figure 1 as illustrating a work piece having
layers 110, 120, and 130 to be differentially patterned without damaging
underlying layers. Id. at 13 (citing Cheng ,r,r 22-24). The Examiner
concludes it would have been obvious, based on these combined disclosures
of Gu and Cheng:
to modify amplitude adjusted laser pulses for processing the
object at both the first depth and the second depth at the same
target location of Gu in view of amplitude adjusted laser pulses
for processing the object at both the first layer and the second
layer at the same target location of Cheng.
Id. ( emphases added).
Upon consideration of the foregoing, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner has not sufficiently addressed the requirement in claim 1 for
selectively adjusting amplitudes of different individual laser pulses within a
single burst of laser pulses, based on processing characteristics of different
layers at a target location of a work piece. Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). Gu
focuses on adjusting the width and perhaps energy of individual laser pulses,
to affect the depth of a mark formed in a work piece. Gu, Abstract, ,r,r 17,
24--25, 58, 60-62; id. ,r 51 (Fig. 1 illustrates "marks with depths DI and D2
are formed with laser first and second pulsed laser outputs having pulse
widths tl and t2 and energies El and E2").
11
Appeal2017-000225
Application 12/413,350
We will assume that the individual pulse "energy" or "power" of Gu
corresponds to the pulse "amplitude" of claim 1. See Gu, Fig. 1 (illustrating
a first pulse shape for marking a wafer to depth D1, and a second pulse shape
for marking the wafer to depth D2). However, even with that assumption,
Gu's disclosure is limited to adjusting the amplitude of one pulse to vary the
depth of a mark formed in the top surface of the work piece. Id. at Fig. 1.
The Examiner acknowledges "Cheng does not disclose explicitly that the
pulse amplitudes are adjusted" as part of Cheng's differential processing of
different layers in a work piece. Adv. Act. 2. Indeed, Cheng discloses
modifying several other laser properties to achieve such differential
processing, namely: "wavelength (A.), pulse width (T), spectral width (/'i"A),
spot size, bite size and fluency." Cheng, Abstract, ,r,r 11, 19-20. Thus,
neither Gu nor Cheng expressly discloses adjusting individual pulse
amplitudes within a single burst envelope for differential processing of
different layers in a work piece.
Therefore, obviousness here requires a rational underpinning,
supported by a preponderance of the evidence, indicating why a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted individual pulse amplitudes
within a single burst envelope for differential processing of different layers
in a work piece. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited
with approval in KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
We can find no such reasoning in the Examiner's rejection. Gu does
disclose a "'burst mode' operation," in which single pulses (such as the
single pulses used in Figure 1) are combined to form a single burst of pulses
having a desired envelope shape. Gu ,r 65, Figs. 4a--4c. But, the Examiner
does not address how Gu's burst mode operation relates to Gu's single pulse
12
Appeal2017-000225
Application 12/413,350
amplitude adjustment reflected in Figure 1, or provide any reason why it
would have been obvious to selectively adjust the amplitudes of first and
second individual pulses within a single burst envelope, to perform the
differential depth marking function of different single (i.e., un-bursted)
pulses reflected in Figure 1. See, e.g., Final Act. 5-7; Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 13.
Further, we appreciate that Cheng discloses changing various
properties of a laser pulse to achieve different processing of different layers
at the same target location in a work piece. See, e.g., Cheng ,r 11. However,
as the Examiner acknowledges, pulse amplitude is not one of those
properties. Adv. Act. 2. The Examiner has not provided any technical
reasoning to establish why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
changed the pulse amplitudes, in addition to or in replacement of the various
properties actually disclosed in Cheng, to achieve the differential processing
disclosed by Cheng. See, e.g., Final Act. 5-7; Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 13.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claim 1 as having been obvious over Gu and Cheng. The Examiner's
additional consideration of dependent claims 2, 3, and 6 does not address the
deficiencies as to independent claim 1 (see Final Act. 5-7, 10), so we
likewise do not sustain the rejection of those claims as having been obvious
over Gu and Cheng.
D. Obviousness over Gu, Cheng, and Cordingley (Claims 4 and 5)
The Examiner's additional consideration of dependent claims 4 and 5,
and of Cordingley, does not address the deficiencies as to independent
claim 1 discussed above. See Final Act. 7-9. Therefore, for the reasons
provided above, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 5 as having
been obvious over Gu, Cheng, and Cordingley.
13
Appeal2017-000225
Application 12/413,350
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections are reversed.
REVERSED
14