Ex Parte Scheer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 3, 2014

11694963 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte STEVEN SCHEER and KATHLEEN NAFUS
____________________

Appeal 2013-001485
Application 11/694,963
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1 through 12 and 17. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Appeal 2013-001485
Application 11/694,963

2
The claims are directed to a method of curing a plurality of
lithographic layers on a substrate. App. Br. 2. Claim 1 illustrates the subject
matter on appeal and is reproduced below:

1. A method of curing a plurality of lithographic
layers on a substrate, the method comprising:

depositing a first lithographic layer;

depositing a second lithographic layer in a contiguous
relationship with the first lithographic layer;

after depositing the first and second lithographic layers,
placing the substrate, the first lithographic layer, and the second
lithographic layer in a process chamber at a first pressure;

heating the substrate, the first lithographic layer, and the
second lithographic layer in the process chamber; and

after the substrate, the first lithographic layer, and the
second lithographic layer are placed in the chamber, evacuating
the process chamber to a second pressure lower than the first
pressure.

The Examiner relied on the following references in rejecting the
appealed subject matter:
Petersen US 5,635,333 June 3, 1997
Weaver US 2004/0096570 Al May 20, 2004
Terada US 2007/0116881 Al May 24, 2007
Brodsky US 2007/0178404 Al Aug. 2, 2007

Appeal 2013-001485
Application 11/694,963

3
Appellants (App. Br. 2–3) request review of the following rejections
from the Examiner’s Final Office Action:1
I. Claim 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement.

II. Claims 1–9, 11, and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brodsky and Weaver.

III. Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Brodsky, Weaver, and Terada.

IV. Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Brodsky, Weaver, and Petersen.

OPINION

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph (written description)
(Rejection I)

We AFFIRM.
The Examiner found that the Specification, as originally filed, does
not provide written description for the language in claim 17 “heating the
substrate in the process chamber is in response to evacuating the process
chamber to the second pressure.” Final Act. 2. The Examiner found that
Appellants’ Specification discloses that the substrate may be heated and the
process evacuated to a second pressure. Final Act. 2: Spec. 17, 40, 43. The
Examiner found Appellants’ Specification “fails to disclose the step of
heating the substrate is in response to evacuating the process chamber to the

1 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph. Ans. 9. Accordingly, this rejection is not before us on
appeal.
Appeal 2013-001485
Application 11/694,963

4
second pressure, in the sense of being caused or controlled by the pressure
adjustment itself.” Final Act. 2.
Appellants argue the phrase “in response to” in dependent claim 17
merely means that the substrate is heated after the process chamber is
evacuated to the second pressure so that a time delay can occur between the
evacuation to the second pressure and the heating. App. Br. 9. Appellants
direct us to the process flowchart in Figure 7 showing heating step 720
occurring after an evacuation step 710 as providing written descriptive
support for the disputed language. Id.
We are unpersuaded by this argument and agree with the Examiner’s
finding that the Specification fails to disclose a step of heating the substrate
in response to evacuating the process chamber to the second pressure as
required by the subject matter of dependent claim 17. Appellants direct us
to the process flowchart in Figure 7 as providing descriptive support for the
disputed language. App. Br. 9. The process flowchart in Figure 7 only
shows sequential steps of evacuating the process chamber to a second
pressure followed by heating the substrate. Spec. Fig. 7, ¶¶ 41–43. There is
no indication in the process flowchart of Figure 7 or the figure’s description
in the Specification that evacuation occurs in response2 to the heating step or
that there is a time delay between the evacuation to the second pressure and
the heating. Thus, Appellants have not adequately explained how the
Specification, as originally filed, conveys to those skilled in the art that the

2 On this record, Appellants have not proffered any extrinsic or intrinsic
evidence to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
the phrase “in response” differently than its ordinary meaning.
Appeal 2013-001485
Application 11/694,963

5
inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time the instant
application was filed.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for the reasons presented above and in the
Final Action and the Answer.

Prior Art Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)3, 4
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and
the Examiner, we AFFIRM for the reasons presented by the Examiner.
We refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action for a complete
statement of the rejections. Final Act. 4–8.
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method of curing a
plurality of lithographic layers on a substrate comprising the step of heating
the plurality of lithographic layers on a substrate in a process chamber.
The Examiner found Brodsky discloses applying a first lithographic
layer (antireflective layer) onto a substrate to form a first assembly, placing
this first assembly in a process chamber and heating the first assembly to
ambient temperatures of from about 20 °C to about 50 °C (corresponding to
a temperature range of from about 68 °F to about 122 °F). Final Act. 4;

3 Appellants present arguments only for independent claim 1. See Appeal
Brief, generally. Accordingly, we limit our discussion to independent claim
1. Dependent claims 2–9, 11, and 17 are not separately argued. App. Br. 8.
In addition, Appellants do not present arguments for the respective separate
rejections of dependent claims 10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
(Rejections II and III). Id. Accordingly, dependent claims 2–12 and 15
stand or fall together with independent claim 1
4 A discussion of Weaver is unnecessary for disposition of this appeal. The
Examiner relied upon this reference for features not related to the dispositive
issue.
Appeal 2013-001485
Application 11/694,963

6
Brodsky ¶¶ 59, 99. The Examiner also found Brodsky discloses placing a
second lithographic layer (photoresist) over the first assembly to form a
second assembly that is subsequently heated to remove solvents from the
photoresist. Final Act. 4; Brodsky ¶ 102. The Examiner found that Brodsky
discloses that the photoresist layer can be applied using the same method for
applying the antireflective layer. Final Act. 4; Brodsky ¶ 61. This would
result in heating a plurality of lithographic layers on a substrate at ambient
temperatures of from about 20 °C to about 50 °C.
Appellants argue Brodsky would not suggest heating such a plurality
of lithographic layers on a substrate because Brodsky is directed to a method
of reducing pinhole defects in anti-reflective coatings by evacuating solvents
with a vacuum step at reduced ambient temperatures. App. Br. 5; Brodsky
¶¶ 17, 25, 63. According to Appellants, Brodsky is directed to drying anti-
reflection coatings without heating the substrate so as to avoid creating
pinhole defects in the coating. App. Br. 5–6; Brodsky ¶¶ 25, 63.
We are unpersuaded by these arguments.
As noted by the Examiner, Brodsky discloses heating a multilayer
assembly to ambient temperatures of from about 20 °C to about 50 °C using
an ambient5 temperature hotplate.6 Ans. 11; Brodsky ¶ 59. We agree with
the Examiner’s reasoning that Brodsky’s use of an ambient temperature
hotplate is suggestive of heating the lithographic layers/substrate assembly
to or maintaining the assembly within the recited ambient temperature range.

5 According to paragraph [0059] of Brodsky, “[b]y ‘ambient’, it is meant a
temperature from about 20°C to about 50°C.”
6 Consistent with the definition of “ambient” that includes a heated
condition, Brodsky teaches using a hot (i.e., heated) plate.
Appeal 2013-001485
Application 11/694,963

7
Ans. 11–12, 14. Particularly, one skilled in the art would have reasonably
expected that the lithographic layers/substrate assembly of Brodsky would
require heating beyond room temperature to reach or maintain a desired
ambient temperature because the ambient temperature is defined to include
the 50 °C (122 °F) upper limit. Brodsky ¶ 59. Appellants have not directed
us to any portion of Brodsky or other evidence that would have suggested
otherwise. Brodsky also suggests heating the multilayer assembly by
disclosing the use of low temperature thermal acid generators to crosslink
the lithographic layer at a temperature much closer to ambient (emphasis
added). Brodsky ¶ 59.
Moreover, while Appellants’ arguments focus on Brodsky’s ambient
temperatures as not heating the lithographic layers/substrate assembly,
independent claim 1 does not specify a temperature range at which the
multilayer assembly is heated nor for how long it is heated.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims
1–12 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by the
Examiner and given above.

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph as not complying with the written description requirement is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1–12 and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.

Appeal 2013-001485
Application 11/694,963

8
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).

AFFIRMED

cdc