Ex Parte Krivtsun et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 15, 2016

12933668 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/933,668 11/01/2010
909 7590 07119/2016
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV)
PO Box 10500
McLean, VA 22102
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Vladimir Mihailovitc Krivtsun
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.
081468-0388302 1544
EXAMINER
PERSAUD, DEORAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2882
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/19/2016 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 VLADIMIR MIHAILOVITC KRIVTSUN,
V ADIM YEVGENYEVICH BANINE, ARNO JAN BLEEKER,
VLADIMIR VITALEVITCH IVANOV,
KONSTANTIN NIKOLAEVITCH KOSHELEV,
JOHANNES HUBERTUS JOSEPHINA MOORS,
SERGEY CHURILOV, and DENIS GLUSHKOV1
Appeal2015-000885
Application 12/933,668
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1, 3-13, and 20-23. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to the Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is ASML
Netherlands B.V. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-000885
Application 12/933,668
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a target material for generating
radiation in the extreme ultraviolet (EUV) range, and associated sources and
lithographic apparatuses. E.g., Spec. i-fi-12, 7; Claims 1, 7, 8. Claim 1 is
reproduced below from page 9 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief:
1. A target material for use in a source constructed and arranged
to generate a radiation beam having a wavelength in an extreme
ultraviolet range, said target material comprising a Gd-based
composition configured to decrease a melting temperature of
Gd.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL2
1. Claims 1, 3-8, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Nagai et al. (US 2006/0133574 Al,
published June 22, 2006) and Bykanov et al. (US 2008/0048133 Al,
published Feb. 28, 2008).
2. Claims 9-13 and 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nagai and Bykanov, further in view ofErshov et al. (US
2007 /0001131 Al, published Jan. 4, 2007).
ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue the claims subject to Rejection 1 as a group.
We select claim 1 as representative of the rejected claims, and the remaining
2 In headers that appear in the Final Action, the Examiner mistakenly
describes both rejections as anticipation rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
See Final Act. 2, 7. However, the Examiner analyzes the rejected claims for
obviousness consistent with 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Id.; see also Ans. 2. The
Appellants appropriately treat both rejections as obviousness rejections. See
App. Br. 3 n.1.
2
Appeal2015-000885
Application 12/933,668
claims subject to Rejection 1 will stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Appellants do not provide any additional argument
for the claim subject to Rejection 2. Therefore, our decision on the rejection
of claim 1 is dispositive of all claims on appeal.
After review of the cited evidence in the appeal record and the
opposing positions of the Appellants and the Examiner, we determine that
the Appellants have not identified reversible error in the Examiner's
rejections. Accordingly, we affirm the rejections for reasons set forth below,
in the Final Action, and in the Examiner's Answer. See generally Final Act.
2-11; Ans. 2-5.
The Examiner finds that Nagai teaches target materials for generation
of EUV radiation, including Gd and Gd compounds/complexes. Final
Act. 2-3; Nagai i-f 17. The Examiner further finds that a goal ofNagai is to
reduce or prevent the generation of debris in the light source. Final Act. 4;
Ans. 3. The Examiner finds that Bykanov, like Nagai, is concerned with the
reduction of debris in an EUV light source, and that Bykanov teaches the use
of, inter alia, heavy metal gallium alloys, including tin-gallium, as an EUV
light source that produces reduced debris. Final Act. 3. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to use a heavy metal gallium
alloy, including Gd-Ga, as a target material to reduce debris. Id. In the
Answer, the Examiner further finds that tin, as taught by both Bykanov and
Nagai, and Gd, as taught by Nagai, are "functionally equivalent suitable
alternative extreme ultraviolet light source targets," and suggests that it
would have been obvious to substitute Gd for tin in Bykanov's tin-gallium
compound "to shorten the wavelength of the irradiated light." Ans. 4.
3
Appeal2015-000885
Application 12/933,668
The Appellants argue that " [ c] ombining the teachings of Nagai and
Bykanov in the manner proposed by the Office would not provide a
modification to Gd that 'reduces the amount of source material which may
escape and adversely affect optics/absorb EUV light' as asserted by the
Examiner ... at least for the reason that Gd has a significantly higher
melting temperature ... than Sn .... " App. Br. 6.
We are not persuaded by that argument. Both Nagai and Bykanov
teach heavy metal compounds for use as target materials to generate EUV
radiation. Likewise, both Nagai and Bykanov express a concern for
minimizing or preventing the generation of debris, which can interfere with
the optics of a lithography apparatus. E.g., Nagai i-f 7 ("an object of the
present invention is to provide an extreme ultraviolet light source in which
extreme ultraviolet light can be emitted with high emission efficiency, and in
which the generation of debris is prevented .... "); Bykanov i-f 6 ("One
factor that is often considered when designing a high volume EUV light
source is the generation and mitigation of debris inside the light source
which may adversely affect the light source."), i-f 31 (describing goal of
"reduc[ing] the amount of source material which may escape the chamber ..
. and adversely affect optics/absorb EUV light."). While Bykanov provides
a specific example in which SnBr4 is used, e.g., i-f 31; see also App. Br. 5---6
( discussing SnBr4), nothing in Bykanov suggests that the goal of reducing
debris is achieved only by using SnBr4. On the contrary, after identifying
the problem of debris inside the light source, Bykanov expressly discloses as
embodiments of the invention several target materials, including SnBr4 and
tin-gallium alloys. See Bykanov i-fi-1 6, 8. Bykanov also teaches that heavy
metals other than tin "with an emission line in the EUV spectrum" may be
4
Appeal2015-000885
Application 12/933,668
used. Id. if 18. Gd is a known heavy metal that emits in the EUV spectrum.
E.g., Nagai iii! 17, 18. From those teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the
art reasonably would have inferred that heavy metal gallium alloys,
including Sn-Ga and Gd-Ga, are capable of reducing debris inside the light
source.
Concerning melting temperatures, the Appellants concede that a Gd-
Ga alloy has a melting temperature of nearly 500°C lower than Gd alone;
i.e., is "configured to decrease a melting temperature of Gd." App. Br. 5---6.
The Appellants provide no persuasive explanation as to why the fact that Gd
has a higher melting point than Sn would have caused a person of ordinary
skill in the art to doubt the Examiner's finding that a Gd-Ga alloy would
result in reduced debris when used as an EUV target material. See id.; see
also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) ("Attorney's
arguments in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.").
Regardless of whether the combination is viewed as ( 1) the
modification ofNagai's heavy metal Gd compound to use Ga as an alloy
material as suggested by Bykanov, or (2) the simple substitution ofNagai's
Gd (a known element with an emission line in the EUV spectrum) for
Bykanov's tin (another known element with an emission line in the EUV
spectrum) in Bykanov's Sn-Ga alloy, we agree with the Examiner that the
use of a Gd-Ga alloy as a target material would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 416-17 (2007) ("[W]hen a patent claims a structure already
known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element
for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a
predictable result."); see also In re Bush, 296 F .2d 491, 496 (CCP A 1961)
5
Appeal2015-000885
Application 12/933,668
("In a case of this type where a rejection is predicated on two references
each containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed out to the
applicant, we deem it to be of no significance, but merely a matter of
exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of on
Bin view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other secondary.").
As noted above, there is no dispute that a Gd-Ga alloy constitutes "a Gd-
based composition configured to decrease a melting temperature of Gd," as
recited by claim 1. See App. Br. 6 (identifying the melting temperatures of
Gd and Gd-Ga as about 1313°C and 850°C, respectively).
In the Reply Brief, the Appellants newly argue that a person of
ordinary skill would not have been motivated to modify Nagai in view of
Bykanov in order to reduce debris because "Nagai already provides such a
solution." Reply Br. 2-3. That argument is not timely because the
Appellants did not present it in the opening Appeal Brief. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41 (b )(2). Even if it were timely, however, the argument is not
persuasive. Nagai's disclosure of an alternative method of reducing debris
does not negate the foregoing analysis, and the Appellants have not argued
that Nagai's method is incompatible with Bykanov's method. Cf In re
Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("The prior art's mere
disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away
from any of the[] [disclosed] alternatives because such disclosure does not
criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed .... ").
Moreover, the Appellants' argument fails to explain why the proposed
combination is anything more than the simple substitution of one known
EUV-emitting element (Gd) for another (Sn) with predictable results. See
6
Appeal2015-000885
Application 12/933,668
KSR, 550 U.S. at 416-17 (substitution of one known element for another
typically does not result in nonobvious subject matter).
In view of the arguments presented, we are not persuaded of
reversible error in the Examiner's obviousness rejection.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-13, and 20-23.
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
7