Shuichi Yasuda et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 1, 2020

12698876 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2020)

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.
12/698,876 02/02/2010 Shuichi Yasuda 090870-0782188-010310US 4850
20350 7590 04/01/2020
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
FORD, NATHAN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2020 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):
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SHUICHI YASUDA, MASASHI KANAOKA,
KOJI KANEYAMA, TADASHI MIYAGI, KAZUHITO SHIGEMORI,
TORU ASANO, YUKIO TORIYAMA, TAKASHI TAGUCHI,
TSUYOSHI MITSUHASHI and TSUYOSHI OKUMURA

Appeal 2019-002696
Application 12/698,876
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 8–11, 13–15, and 25. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Screen
Semiconductor Solutions Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-002696
Application 12/698,876

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant states that the invention is generally directed to techniques
for processing substrates using a substrate processing apparatus that includes
multiple processing units for processing substrates before and after liquid
immersion exposure processing. (Appeal Br. 4.)
Claim 25 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced
below:
25. A method of processing a semiconductor substrate in a substrate
processing apparatus that is arranged adjacent to an exposure device
that performs exposure processing on the substrate by a liquid
immersion method, and includes first, second, third, and fourth
processing units, comprising the steps of:
forming a photosensitive film made of a photosensitive material
on an upper surface of the substrate by said first processing unit
before the exposure processing by said exposure device;
supplying pure water on the substrate, after the exposure
processing by said exposure device, in said second processing unit;
drying the substrate in said second processing unit after the
supply of the pure water;
heating the dried substrate by said fourth processing unit; and
applying development processing to the heated substrate by
said third processing unit,
wherein said step of supplying the pure water includes
supplying the pure water directly to the photosensitive film on the
substrate, after the exposure processing by said exposure device and
before the heating by said fourth processing unit, to wash away a
liquid used in the exposure processing and attached to the
photosensitive film before the pure water is supplied in said second
processing unit, and
said step of drying the substrate includes spinning off the pure
water from the substrate by rotating the substrate after the supply of
the pure water to the substrate.

Appeal Br. 17, Claims Appendix.
Appeal 2019-002696
Application 12/698,876

3

The following rejections are presented for our review: 2
I. Claims 8 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ho (US 2005/0046934 A1, published Mar. 3, 2005), in
view of Mutoh, (US 2001/0018167 A1, published Aug. 30, 2001).
II. Claims 9, 11, and 13–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ho, Mutoh, Hashinoki (US 2004/0182318 A1, published
Sep. 23, 2004), and Inoue (US 2002/0160625 A1, published Oct. 31, 2002).
III. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ho, Mutoh, Hashinoki, Inoue, and Lee (US 2003/0155069 A1,
published Aug. 21, 2003).
IV. Claims 8 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Streefkerk (US 2005/0259232 A1, published Nov. 24,
2005), Zhang (US 2005/0161644 A1, published Jul. 28, 2005), Ho, and
Mutoh.
V. Claims 9, 11, and 13–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Streefkerk, Zhang, Ho, Mutoh, Hashinoki, and Inoue.
VI. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Streefkerk, Zhang, Ho, Mutoh, Hashinoki, Inoue, and Lee.

2 The complete statement of the rejections on appeal appears in the Final
Office Action. (Final Act. 3–7).
Appeal 2019-002696
Application 12/698,876

4
OPINION
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We limit our discussion to the independent claim 25 as argued by
Appellant. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claims 8–11 and 13–15 stand or fall
with independent claim 25. Although additional references are applied in
the rejections of claims 9–11 and 13–15, the Appellant does not provide a
substantive argument as to the separate patentability of those claims but,
rather, argue that the additional references do not remedy the deficiency in
the references applied to claim 25. (Appeal Br. 11 and 14).
The Examiner rejects independent claim 25 as obvious over the
combination of Ho and Mutoh.
The Examiner finds Ho teaches a method comprising forming a film
of photosensitive material on a substrate in a first processing unit, liquid
immersion exposure processing in a second processing unit, removal of the
liquid layer utilizing centrifugal forces, and thermal treating the dried
substrate. (Final Act. 3–4; Ho ¶¶ 29, 40–44.) Ho discloses the drying
process can be facilitated by utilization of a drying fluid. (Ho ¶ 42.) The
Examiner recognizes Ho fails to describe water as a suitable drying fluid.
(Final Act. 4.) The Examiner finds Mutoh describes a process in which
water is supplied to the exposed photoresist and dried by rotating the
substrate at high speeds prior to the application of the developing fluid to
preclude residual impurities from entering the development solution. (Final
Act. 4; Mutoh ¶¶ 27, 68, Fig. 11.) The Examiner determines it would have
been obvious to provide water to the substrate following exposure to ensure
the integrity of the resist pattern. (Final Act. 4.)
Appeal 2019-002696
Application 12/698,876

5
Appellant argues the combination of Ho and Mutoh do not teach or
suggest applying pure water to a substrate to which an immersion fluid is
attached for drying the substrate before applying development processing as
required by the claimed invention. (Appeal Br. 8–11.) Appellant
specifically argues Ho teaches the immersion fluid is dried utilizing
isopropyl alcohol (IPA) and therefore teaches away from using water as the
drying fluid after exposure. (Appeal Br. 8–9 citing Ho ¶ 42.) Appellant
argues Mutoh does not demonstrate the effectiveness of using water as the
drying fluid to aid in removing the immersion fluid and drying the surface of
the thin film. (Appeal Br. 10.) Appellant further argues Mutoh describes a
process where pure water is displaced by developing liquid prior to
developing the exposed photoresist to prevent residual impurities from
entering into the development solution. (Appeal Br. 10–11.)
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
We do not agree with Appellant that Ho teaches away from utilizing
water as a drying fluid. Appellant does not point to any passage in Ho that
“criticizes, discredits or otherwise discourages” utilization of a drying liquid
that is appropriate for removal of the developing liquid. See In re Fulton,
391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (prior art does not teach away from
claimed subject matter merely by disclosing a different solution to a similar
problem unless the prior art also criticizes, discredits or otherwise
discourages the solution claimed). Ho describes the drying process as
including rotation of the substrate with or without a drying fluid. Ho only
references IPA as an exemplary embodiment. (Ho ¶ 42 (“[t]he drying fluid
can, for example, comprise an alcohol, such as isopropyl alcohol.”).) Thus,
Appeal 2019-002696
Application 12/698,876

6
Appellant has not established that Ho teaches away from forming utilizing
pure water as a drying fluid.
Moreover, a person with ordinary skill in the art possesses a certain
basic level of skill. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)
(“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.”). It cannot be reasonably argued in view of the prior art cited,
that one with ordinary skill in the art would not have readily recognized that
a drying fluid is selected specifically to aid in the intended purpose for
drying the immersion fluid. (See Ans. 4.) Appellant has not introduced
evidence otherwise.
Appellant argues IPA drying techniques are adopted in Ho because
IPA drying techniques can have high watermark suppression effects. In
support of this position for the first time in the Appeal Brief, Appellant
discusses two previously unconsidered documents: Paper 1 “Drying
Technology for Silicon Wafer in Semiconductor Manufacturing”; and Paper
2 “Isopropyl Alcohol (IPA) Drying Effect on Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic
Wafer Surfaces.” (Appeal Br. 17.)
The Examiner notes the newly presented evidence was not properly
filed.3 (Ans. 3.) Moreover, both Papers 1 and 2 are presented in a foreign
language with only an English language translation of presumably their
respective abstracts. Nevertheless, the English language presentations from
these documents have been considered. However, these disclosures are
insufficient to overcome the obviousness rejection provided by the

3 See 37 C.F.R. § 41.33(d)(2) (“All other affidavits or other Evidence filed
after the date of filing an appeal pursuant to § 41.31(a)(1) through (a)(3)
will not be admitted except as permitted by §§ 41.39(b)(1), 41.50(a)(2)(i),
and 41.50(b)(1).”)
Appeal 2019-002696
Application 12/698,876

7
Examiner. Papers 1 and 2 do not detract from the teachings of the prior art
regarding the suitability of using water as a drying fluid. (See Mutoh
discussed above.)
For the foregoing reasons we sustain the rejection of independent
claim 25 over the combination of Ho and Mutoh.

The Examiner rejects independent claim 25 as obvious over the
combination of Streefkerk, Zhang, Ho, and Mutoh.

The Examiner finds Streefkerk discloses a lithography system
comprising an exposure device and a second processing unit (ADS) that
removes the immersion fluid from the substrate following exposure utilizing
a liquid capable of dissolving the immersion fluid. (Final Act. 5; Streefkerk
¶¶ 58, 73.) The Examiner finds Streefkerk fails to disclose suitable
immersion fluid. (Final Act. 5.) The Examiner finds Zhang describes a
variety of immersion lithography fluids including glycerol, which are
acceptable for use at wavelengths ranging from 140-248 nanometers. (Final
Act. 5; Zhang ¶¶ 5, 15.) Streefkerk teaches that the drying liquid in which
the immersion liquid dissolves is of a type more easily removed from the
surface of the substrate than the immersion liquid. (Streefkerk ¶ 73.) The
Examiner finds Mutoh describes a process in which water is supplied to the
exposed photoresist and dried by rotating the substrate at high speeds prior
to the application of the developing fluid to preclude residual impurities
from entering the development solution. (Final Act. 5; Mutoh ¶¶ 27, 68,
Fig. 11.) The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to use an
immersion fluid comprising glycerol and because water solubilizes the
Appeal 2019-002696
Application 12/698,876

8
glycerol, it would have been obvious to have used water to displace a
glycerol immersion fluid. (Final Act. 5.)
The Examiner finds Streefkerk fails discloses a heating step. (Final
Act. 6.) The Examiner finds Ho describes heating following the removal of
the immersion liquid and prior to development. (Final Act. 6; Ho Fig. 5).
Examiner determines it would have been obvious to use a heating step
within Streefkerk’s processing sequence to properly prepare the film for
development. (Final Act. 6.)
Appellant argues the Examiner’s reliance on Streefkerk’s disclosure
that any liquid capable of dissolving the immersion fluid is deemed
acceptable as the drying liquid is insufficient to establish the obviousness of
utilizing water as the drying liquid. (Appeal Br. 11–13.) Appellant argues
Ho and Mutoh fail to cure the deficiencies of Streefkerk for the same reasons
presented above with respect to the rejection over Ho and Mutoh. (Appeal
Br. 13.) Appellant further argues Zhang does not remedy the deficiencies of
Streefkerk and Mutoh with respect to claim 25. (Appeal Br. 14.)
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error for the
reasons set forth above. Contrary to Appellant’s argument, Streefkerk’s
disclosure that any liquid capable of dissolving the immersion fluid is
deemed acceptable as the drying liquid is sufficient to establish the
obviousness of utilizing water as the drying liquid. The Examiner citation of
Zhang for describing water miscible glycerol as an immersion lithography
fluid would have given a skilled artisan a reasonable expectation that water
would have been a suitable drying fluid. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, 480 F.3d
1348, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (the expectation of success need only be
reasonable, not absolute).
Appeal 2019-002696
Application 12/698,876

9
For the foregoing reasons we sustain the rejection of independent
claim 25 over the combination of Streefkerk, Zhang, Ho, and Mutoh.

For the foregoing reasons and those presented by the Examiner, we
sustain appealed rejections I–VI.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
8, 25 103 Ho, Mutoh, 8, 25
9, 11, 13–15 103 Ho, Mutoh,
Hashinoki, Inoue
9, 11, 13–
15

10 103 Ho, Mutoh,
Hashinoki, Inoue,
Lee
10
8, 25 103 Streefkerk, Zhang,
Ho, Mutoh
8, 25
9, 11, 13–15 103 Streefkerk, Zhang,
Ho, Mutoh,
Hashinoki, Inoue
9, 11, 13–
15

10 103 Streefkerk, Zhang,
Ho, Mutoh,
Hashinoki, Inoue,
Lee
10
Overall
Outcome
8–11, 13–
15, 25

Appeal 2019-002696
Application 12/698,876

10
TIME PERIOD FOR 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