Ex Parte Ryzhikov

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2017

12549158 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 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.
1857.9980001 8446
EXAMINER
LEE, SHUN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2884
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/549,158 08/27/2009 Lev RYZHIKOV
26111 7590 03/28/2017
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
03/28/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LEV RYZHIKOV
Appeal 2016-000051
Application 12/549,1581
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JEFFERY T. SMITH, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1—6, 10-15, 26, 27, and 29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§6.
1 The real party in interest is ASML HOLDING N.V. (App. Br. 3).
Appeal 2016-000051
Application 12/549,158
Appellant’s invention is generally directed to a semiconductor
inspection system including an illumination system, a telescope system
configured to receive the light from the illumination system, and an
objective lens system configured to receive light from the telescope system
and transmit light at a given wavelength to a surface. Spec. 110. Claim 1
illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced from the Appeal
Brief below:
1. A semiconductor inspection system, comprising:
an illumination system configured to condition light from a
radiation source to provide light at a given wavelength;
a telescope system configured to receive the light from the
illumination system; and an objective lens system configured to
receive light from the telescope system and transmit light at the
given wavelength to a surface,
wherein the telescope system comprises a moveable lens that
has an absolute value of optical power in the range of
approximately 0.002 to 0.01 to compensate for sphero-
chromatic aberration while other parameters of the
semiconductor inspection system remain unchanged, the
sphero-chromatic aberration is caused when a nominal
wavelength of the semiconductor inspection system is not equal
to the given wavelength, such that sphero-chromatic aberration
of the semiconductor inspection system meets a user-defined
tolerance.
2
Appeal 2016-000051
Application 12/549,158
Appellant (see App. Br., generally) requests review of the following
rejections from the Examiner’s Final Office Action
I. Rejection of claims 1—5, 10-14, 26, 27, and 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Vaez-lravani (US 6,208,411 B1
issued Mar. 27, 2001) (“Vaez-lravani”) in view of Domenicali (US
2009/0096914 A1 published Apr. 16, 2009) (“Domenicali”),
Hayamizu et al. (US 3,576,358 issued Apr. 27, 1971)
(“Hayamizu”), and Zimmer et al. (US 2003/0210470 Al published
Nov. 13, 2003) (“Zimmer”).
II. Rejection of claims 6 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Vaez-lravani in view of Domenicali, Hayamizu and Zimmer and
further in view of Lange (US 2006/0219930 Al published Oct. 5,
2006). (“Lange”).
OPINION2
Upon consideration of the evidence in this appeal record in light of the
respective positions advanced by the Examiner and Appellant, we determine
that Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that the applied prior art would have rendered the subject
matter recited in claims 1—6, 10-15, 26, 27, and 29 obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections of the above
2 Appellant presents their substantive arguments addressing independent
claims 1 and 10 together. Appellant has not presented separate substantive
arguments for Rejection II. Appellant also has not presented arguments
specific to dependent claims 2—6, 11—15, 26, 27, and 29. We limit our
discussion to independent claim 1 as representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
3
Appeal 2016-000051
Application 12/549,158
claims for the reasons set forth in the Final Action and the Answer. We add
the following.
The Examiner found Vaez-Iravani describes a semiconductor
inspection system comprising an illumination system, a telescope system
configured to receive the light from the illumination system; and an
objective lens system wherein optics are relocated to compensate for
aberration. Final Act. 3. The Examiner found Vaez-Iravani lacks an explicit
description that the telescope system comprises a movable lens that has an
absolute value of optical power in the range of approximately 0.002 to 0.01.
Final Act. 4. The Examiner found Domenicali teaches a telescope
comprising one or more lenses (or group of lenses) that are moved to
compensate for sphero-chromatic aberration caused by changes in the
wavelength of the radiation used for measurement while other parameters of
the objective or measurement system remain unchanged. Final Act. 4. The
Examiner found Hayamizu and Zimmer are evidence that it was known in
the art that the magnification of a telescope can be varied with optical
assemblies with different optical powers. Final Act. 4—5. The Examiner
concluded it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art
to provide a moveable lens in the system of Vaez-Iravani. The Examiner
further concluded it would have been obvious to utilize a moveable lens
having an absolute value of optical power (e.g., 0.002) in order to achieve a
desired magnification. Final Act. 5.
Appellant argues Zimmer does not provide any movable lens that has
an absolute value of optical power in the range of approximately 0.002 to
0.01, as recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 6—8. Appellant also argues
4
Appeal 2016-000051
Application 12/549,158
there is no teaching or suggestion that would motivate the ordinary artisan to
optimize the focal length and/or optical power of Zimmer. App. Br. 11—12.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. It is not
disputed that Zimmer describes movable lenses that are adjusted to achieve a
desired magnification. Rather, Appellant limits the arguments to Zimmer’s
disclosure of the optical power of the movable lens. We agree with the
Examiner that it was known in the art that the magnification of a telescope
can be varied with optical assemblies with different optical powers (e.g., see
Hayamizu cols. 2—3 and Zimmer || 5—6). Ans. 5. The evidence cited by the
Examiner establishes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized the relationship between magnification and optical zoom of lens.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have sufficient skill to select the
lens having the appropriate power to achieve the magnification required by
Zimmer. Moreover, Zimmer recognizes the relationship between the zoom
and the correction of spherical aberrations and chromatic aberrations and
astigmatism. Zimmer || 58—59. Appellant has not asserted that an optical
lens having an absolute value of optical power in the range of approximately
0.002 to 0.01 would have been unsuitable for the invention of the Zimmer or
Vaez-Iravani.
Appellant also relies on Specification Figs. 7 and 8 to exhibit the
optical power in the range of approximately 0.002 to 0.01, as recited in the
claims, can allow the movable lens to compensate for sphero-chromatic
aberration, while other parameters of the semiconductor inspection system
remain unchanged, as compared to Figs. 7a and 7b of Zimmer. App. Br. 8—
9.
5
Appeal 2016-000051
Application 12/549,158
The comparison of Figs. 7a and 7b of Zimmer to Specification Figs. 7
and 8 is not probative because the wavelengths represented in these graphs
are not the same. That is, Zimmer utilizes Z=587.56 nm and Z=435.83 nm
while the present specification utilizes X =266.05 nm. Zimmer | 58, Spec.
Tflf 82—83. Appellant has not provided an explanation that the spherical
aberrations, chromatic aberrations and astigmatism would have been
expected to provide similar results at these varying wavelengths. Moreover,
the Specification Figure 8 depictions have not been shown to be
representative of the claimed moveable lens that has an absolute value of
optical power in the range of approximately 0.002 to 0.01. Specifically the
specification states “[t]he graphs in Figure 8 depict the same system as
depicted in Figure 7 after sphero-chromatic aberration correction according
to an embodiment of the present invention has been applied.” Spec. 1 83.
The Specification provides a description of numerous embodiments. For
example, Specification paragraphs 76—80 discuss embodiments directed to
utilizing modeling software, moving the group of lenses within a telescope
system, interchanging a telescope system and utilizing movable lenses
having an absolute optical power in the range of approximately 0.002-0.01.
Consequently, it cannot be discerned which embodiment has been depicted
in Figure 8.
Appellant’s further arguments regarding the suitability of combining
the references as suggested by the Examiner are not persuasive of reversible
error. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference .... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
6
Appeal 2016-000051
Application 12/549,158
Keller, 42 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). It is not disputed that Vaez-Iravani
describes a semiconductor inspection system comprising an illumination
system, a telescope system configured to receive the light from the
illumination system; Domenicali teaches a telescope comprising one or more
lenses (or group of lenses) that are moved to compensate for sphero-
chromatic aberration; and both Hayamizu and Zimmer are evidence that it
was known in the art that the magnification of a telescope can be varied with
optical assemblies with different optical powers. Accordingly, we sustain
the rejection of claims 1—6, 10-15, 26, 27, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).3
CONCLUSION
The obviousness rejections I and II are 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
3 In the event of further prosecution the Examiner and Appellant should
determine whether the value of optical power presented in the record is
definite as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (2012). It is noted that optical
power can be expressed in different ways using various units of measure, the
omission of which may create an issue of clarity. Cf. Teva Pharmaceuticals
USA, vine. Sandoz, Inc. 723 F. 3d 1363, 1369 (Fed Cir, 2012).
7