Ex Parte Lin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 3, 2016

11677320 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111677,320 02/21/2007
42717 7590 06/07/2016
HA YNES AND BOONE, LLP
IP Section
2323 Victory A venue
Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75219
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Chien-Hsun Lin
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.
2006-0403 I 24061.796 9736
EXAMINER
RIDDLE, CHRISTINA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2882
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/07/2016 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):
ipdocketing@haynesboone.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHIEN-HSUN LIN, AN-KAO YANG,
JUI-CHUNG PENG, and YAO-WEN GUO
Appeal2014-006520
Application 11/677,320
Technology Center 2800
Before GEORGE C. BEST, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1-6, 8-18, and 20-24 of
Application 11/677,320 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act.
(August 13, 2013). Appellants 1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE.
1 Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. is identified as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2014-006520
Application 11/677,320
BACKGROUND
The '320 Application describes improved methods and apparatus for
manufacturing a microelectronic apparatus by lithography. Spec. iii! 1-3.
Claims 1 and 13 are representative of the '320 Application's claims and are
reproduced below:
1. A method of manufacturing a microelectronic apparatus,
compnsmg:
exposing a pattern in a dummy field on a substrate by
utilizing a lithographic scanner at a first speed; and
exposing the same pattern in a production field on the
substrate by utilizing the lithographic scanner at a second
speed;
wherein the first speed is substantially greater than the
second speed, and
wherein the dummy field comprises an exposure area that
overlaps an outermost edge of the substrate, and
further wherein the production field comprises an
exposure area that lies completely within the outermost edge of
the substrate,
further wherein the pattern extends to the outermost edge
of the substrate.
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.) (some paragraphing added).
13. An apparatus, comprising:
means for exposing a pattern in a dummy field on a
substrate at a first speed; and
means for exposing the same pattern in a production field
on the substrate at a second speed,
wherein the first speed is substantially greater than the
second speed, and
wherein the dummy field comprises an exposure area that
overlaps an outermost edge of the substrate, and
2
Appeal2014-006520
Application 11/677,320
further wherein the production field comprises an
exposure area that lies completely within the outermost edge of
the substrate,
further wherein the pattern extends to the outermost edge
of the substrate.
Appeal Br. 13 (some paragraphing added).
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 3-6, 13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combination of Koike2 and Glent-
Madsen. 3 Final Act. 2.
2. Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Koike, Glent-Madsen, and
Kumar. Final Act. 7.
3. Claims 8-12 and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Kurosawa, Koike, and Glent-
Madsen. Final Act. 8.
DISCUSSION
Rejections 1 and 2. Appellants present substantive argument for
reversal of the rejection of independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 8-9.
Appellants argue that the rejections of claims 2-6 and 13-18 should be
2 JP 406020903, published January 28, 1994. We cite a machine translation
entered into the record of the '320 Application on August 13, 2013.
3 WO 2004/021269 Al, published March 11, 2004.
3
Appeal2014-006520
Application 11/677,320
reversed for the same reason that the rejection of claim 1 should be reversed.
See id. at 9-10. Accordingly, we limit our analysis to claim 1.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that Koike describes almost
every limitation recited in claim 1. Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner, however,
found that Koike does not appear to explicitly describe the requirement that
the first speed be substantially greater than the second speed. Id. at 3. The
Examiner further found that
Glent-Madsen discloses exposure with different speeds where
the first speed is substantially greater than the second speed (page
14, line 30-page 15, lines [sic] 5, exposure is performed with
different scanning speeds, including accelerating at the edge of
the light-sensitive substrate, thereby allowing a higher speed at
the edge of the substrate then towards the center).
Id. The Examiner also found:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to have included exposing with a
first speed substantially greater than the second speed as taught
by Glent-Madsen with the exposure method of exposing a same
pattern in a dummy field and a production field as taught by
Koike since, as shown by Glent-Madsen, having a first speed
substantially greater than the second speed is commonly used in
order to improve the flexibility of the lithography system since
other changes, such as in intensity and quality, can be made by
easily changing the scanning speed and allowing scanning at
different speeds improves the efficiency of the lithography
system (see page 14, line 30-page[ ]15, line 5).
Id. at 3-4.
Based upon these findings of fact, the Examiner concluded that the
differences between the prior art in subject matter of claim 1 would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention.
4
Appeal2014-006520
Application 11/677,320
Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 should be reversed
because the Examiner did not establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Appeal Br. 8-9. In particular, Appellants argue that the Examiner erred by
finding that the combination of Koike and Glent-Madsen describes or
suggests using "different speeds for the desired pattern and the dummy shot
as recited in claim l ." Id. at 9.
We agree with Appellants and determine that the Examiner erred in
finding that Glent-Madsen describes or suggests increasing the scanning
speed of the lithographic apparatus during the exposure of a dummy shot.
The portion of Glent-Madsen cited by the Examiner reads:
Thereby it is possible to highly improve the efficiency, as
exposure may be carried out at different scanning speeds, e.g.
when slowing down or accelerating at the edges of the light
sensitive surface. Furthermore the possibility of changing the
scanning speed, whether continuously or stepwise, highly
improves the flexibility of the system, as changes in the intensity
of the light source, the sensitivity or other properties of the light
sensitive surface, the desired quality, or several other parameters
may be more or less easily met by a change in the scanning speed.
Glent-Madsen 14-15 (emphasis added).
As can be seen, Glent-Madsen suggests varying the scanning speed by
slowing down or accelerating at the edges of the light-sensitive surface,
which corresponds with at least some of the time during which a dummy
shot is being taken. Glent-Madsen, however, does not suggest the direction
in which the scanning speed should be varied and does not suggest increased
speed while taking a dummy shot.
Moreover, the Examiner does not provide any factual finding or
explanation as to why a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention would have chosen to increase the scanning speed while
5
Appeal2014-006520
Application 11/677,320
exposing a pattern in a dummy field relative to the speed of exposing the
same pattern in a production field. Because "rejections on obviousness
grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements[,] ... there must
be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support
the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006).
For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1. Thus, we also reverse the rejection of claims 2-6 and 13-18.
Rejection 3. The Examiner rejected claims 8-12 and 20-24 as
unpatentable over the combination ofKoike, Glent-Madsen, and Kurosawa.
Final Act. 8. Independent claims 8 and 20 contain limitations similar to
those recited in claim 1. Appellants further argue that "the arguments given
above in favor of the patentability of claim 8, apply to claim 20 as well."
Appeal Br. 11. Accordingly, we limit our discussion to the rejection of
claim 8. Claims 9-12 and 20-24 will stand or fall with claim 8.
Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 8 should be reversed
because Kurosawa does not remedy the deficiencies of the combination of
Koike and Glent-Madsen. Id. at 10-11. Because the Examiner relies upon
Kurosawa as describing the use of a third scanning speed, the Final Action
does not contain findings regarding the use of a higher scanning speed when
a dummy shot is being exposed than when a production shot is being
exposed. Thus, we agree with Appellants and reverse the rejection of claim
8. We, therefore, also reverse the rejection of claims 9-12 and 20-24.
6
Appeal2014-006520
Application 11/677,320
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the rejections of claims 1-
6, 8-18, and 20-24.
REVERSED
7