Ex Parte Klaassen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 3, 2017

13055827 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 3, 2017)

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.
13/055,827 01/25/2011 Michel Francois Hubert Klaassen 081468-0391491 8415
909 7590 07/06/2017
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP
PO Box 10500
McLean, VA 22102
EXAMINER
PERSAUD, DEORAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2882
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/06/2017 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
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHEL FRANCOIS HUBERT KLAASSEN,
ROGIER HERMAN MATHIJS GROENEVELD,
ALEXANDER MATTHIJS STRUYCKEN, and
GERARDUS HUBERTUS MARIA SWINKELS
Appeal 2016-003865
Application 13/055,827
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—10, 13 and 14 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as
being anticipated by Singer et al. (US 2005/0274897 Al, published Dec. 15,
2005). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 ASML Netherlands B.V. is stated to be the real party in interest (App. Br.
2).
Appeal 2016-003865
Application 13/055,827
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (emphasis added
to identify disputed limitations):
1. A lithographic apparatus comprising:
a source module including a collector and a radiation source
constructed and arranged to provide, in use, a radiation emitting plasma, the
collector configured to collect radiation from the radiation emitting plasma;
an illuminator configured to condition the radiation collected by the
collector and to provide a radiation beam; and
a detector disposed in a fixed positional relationship with respect to
the illuminator, the detector configured to determine a position of the
radiation emitting plasma relative to the collector and a position and
rotational orientation of the source module relative to the illuminator.
Claims 10 and 14 are independent claims which contain limitations
similar to those disputed in claim 1 (Claims Appendix; App. Br. 13, 14).
OPINION
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments. However, we determine
that a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that
the claimed subject matter of independent claims 1,10, and 14 is anticipated
within the meaning of § 102 in view of Singer. Accordingly, we will sustain
the Examiner’s rejection for essentially those reasons expressed in the
Answer. We add the following for emphasis.
Appellants main argument, repeated for each independent claim, is
that Singer does not disclose in a “single embodiment” all of the limitations
in the claim, specifically the detection of the rotational orientation of the
source module relative to the illuminator (App. Br. 6—8; Reply Br. 3).
However, as pointed out by the Examiner, Singer Fig. la discloses arrows
2
Appeal 2016-003865
Application 13/055,827
that indicate rotational adjustment of the source module as well as vertical
and horizontal/linear adjustment (e.g., Final Rejection 3). Singer explicitly
states that at least one detector 61, that preferably involves a quadrant
detector 650 of Fig. 3c and 3d, detects positional misalignments of the
source module 12 and illuminator 50 (Singer | 68). One of ordinary skill
would have immediately appreciated that the embodiment of the quadrant
detector may be applied to the Fig. la system. Likewise one ordinary skill
would have immediately appreciated that the embodiments of Figs, lb and
lc are improvements that may be applied to the overall system of Fig. la
(Singer e.g., H 78, 89).
Appellants’ position that a mirror is rotated, not the source module
(Reply Br. 2) is misplaced. As pointed out by the Examiner, Singer clearly
teaches the misalignment of the source module is corrected relative to the
illuminator (Singer 175; Ans. 3), and Fig. la shows that rotational
corrections as well as linear and vertical corrections are made.
Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s
position that one of ordinary skill would have reasonably inferred from
Singer’s disclosure a detector as claimed having the recited functionalities
(e.g., (e.g., Ans. 3)). In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (In
determining whether a reference anticipates the subject matter recited in a
claim, “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.”) Appellants have not directed
our attention to persuasive reasoning or evidence to establish that the
Examiner’s interpretation of Singer’s disclosure is unreasonable.
3
Appeal 2016-003865
Application 13/055,827
The Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 1—10, 13, and 14 is
affirmed.
ORDER
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)
AFFIRMED
4