Ex Parte Smeets

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

13370102 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/370, 102 02/09/2012
909 7590 11/02/2016
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP
PO Box 10500
McLean, VA 22102
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Erik Marie Jose SMEETS
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.
081468-0403604 1528
EXAMINER
AKANBI, ISIAKA 0
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2886
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2016 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
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIK MARIE JOSE SMEETS
Appeal2015-005143
Application 13/370,102
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
PERCURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), claims 14--17, 20-22, and 38-
40 as unpatentable over Takakuwa3 in view of Akiyama, 4 and claims 31,
34--36, and 41 as unpatentable over Takakuwa alone. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Our decision refers to Appellant's Specification filed February 9, 2012
(Spec.), Appellant's Appeal Brief filed November 11, 2014 (Appeal Br.), the
Examiner's Answer delivered February 25, 2015 (Ans.), and Appellant's
Reply Brief filed April 7, 2015 (Reply Br.).
2 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as ASML Netherlands B.V.
Appeal Br. 2.
3 Takakuwa et al., US 6,597 ,509 B2, issued July 22, 2003 ("Takakuwa").
4 Akiyama, US 2004/0201789 Al, published Oct. 14, 2004 ("Akiyama").
Appeal2015-005143
Application 13/370,102
We REVERSE.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal relates to substrates (see, e.g., claims 14
and 31 ). Lithography is used to apply a desired pattern onto a substrate,
such as in the manufacture of integrated circuits or flat panel displays. Spec.
i-f 3. Appellant discloses that some substrates, such as glass or plastic
substrates, may be more likely to suffer from distortion during a
manufacturing process. Id. at i-f 5. Figure 5 of Appellant's disclosure is
reproduced below.
r-----------------------------------~~--------------------------;;-::c9' f I 04
:f 1' 1...._....- - -
z
HGURE5
i
i . uuuu .. 'F
"::'\ I
\.",;
x
Figure 5 depicts a lithographic apparatus
2
Appeal2015-005143
Application 13/370,102
Appellant discloses a process in which a substrate 995 is provided on a
substrate table 100. Id. at i-f 58. The substrate 99 includes a base layer 101,
a reflective layer 102, and a protective layer 103. Id. A resist layer 104 is
provided on top of the protective layer 102. Id. In addition, the base layer
101 includes an array of pits 105. Id. at i-f 59.
A laser 110, lens 111, and beam splitter 113 are located beneath the
base layer 101 for directing a beam 112 of light at the substrate 99. Id. at i-f
64. The substrate table 100 is made of a material substantially transparent to
the light used to illuminate the pits 105 and the reflective layer 102 may be
opaque and reflective to the light. Id. at i-f 63. Appellant discloses the
intensity of reflected light is greater when the beam 112 is incident upon pits
105, as compared to when the light is incident upon a region of the base
layer 101 not including pits, because the focal plane of the beam corresponds
with the pits 105 but not with areas between the pits 105. Thus, light
reflected from areas between pits 105 has a greater divergence and thus
lower intensity. Id.
After passing through the base layer 101, the light is reflected by the
reflective layer 102 and then reflected by the beam splitter 113 to a detector
114. Id. A feedback circuit 116 connects the detector 114 to a comparator
124 that compares the detected positions of the pits 105 to previously
detected positions of the pits 105 stored in a memory 125. Id. at i-fi-171, 79.
Differences between the two patterns of pit positions indicate distortion of
the substrate 99. Id. at i-f 79. These differences are sent to control
5 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, we present labels to elements in
figures in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
3
Appeal2015-005143
Application 13/370,102
electronics 123, which adjust the pattern provided by an array of moveable
mirrors 121 used to project an adjusted pattern onto the substrate 99. Id.
Independent claim 14 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. 6 The limitations at issue are
italicized.
14. A substrate comprising:
a photosensitive layer;
a mark layer arranged below the photosensitive layer and
having at least 1000 marks, and
a reflective layer arranged between the mark layer and the
photosensitive layer so as to fill spaces between the marks, said
reflective layer being reflective to a radiation beam of a first
wavelength,
wherein said mark layer is transmissive to the radiation
beam at said first wavelength so that said radiation beam
propagating through said mark layer is reflected by said
reflective layer, and
wherein said substrate is a polygonal substrate and
wherein at least one side of the polygonal substrate has a length
of at least 50cm.
The remaining independent claim 31 similarly recites, "wherein the
reflective layer is arranged on the mark layer so as to cover each of said
marks and fill spaces between the marks."
ANALYSIS
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether Appellant has shown a
reversible error in the Examiner's finding that Takakuwa discloses a
reflective layer that fills spaces between the marks of a mark layer, as recited
6 Appeal Br. 23.
4
Appeal2015-005143
Application 13/370,102
in claim 14. We answer this question in the affirmative and, therefore, will
not sustain the Examiner's rejections based on Takakuwa.
The Examiner finds Takakuwa discloses a substrate comprising a
photosensitive layer, a mark layer including a plurality of marks (mark 34
and lenses 32), and a reflective layer 36 arranged between the mark layer
and the photosensitive layer. Ans. 3.
Appellant contends that Takakuwa's reflecting layer 36 does not fill
spaces between mark 34 and lenses 32. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant asserts that
the reflecting layer 36 is formed on an upper surface of the mark 34 to make
it recognizable during an alignment procedure. Id. However, according to
Appellants, Takakuwa's reflecting layer 36 does not "fill spaces between the
marks," as recited in claim 14. Id.
Appellant's arguments are persuasive of reversible error. Figure 4(B)
of Takakuwa is reproduced below.
(8)
Takakuwa, Figure 4(B) depicts a manufacturing step for a microlens array
As shown in Figure 4(B), which shows a step in a manufacturing
process for a microlens array, a light-transmitting layer 30 including lenses
32 is located on a substrate 40. Takakuwa col. 8, 11. 44--46, 60-61.
Takakuwa discloses "a reflecting layer 36 is formed on the mark 34" and
"may be formed around the mark 34." Takakuwa col. 9, 11. 14--15, 17-18.
5
Appeal2015-005143
Application 13/370,102
Appellant further asserts the micro lens array of Takakuwa would not
work if it were modified so the reflecting layer 36 filled the spaces between
marks 34 and lenses 32. Appeal Br. 7. Specifically, Appellant contends the
micro lens array of Takakuwa is designed so light passes through the light
transmitting layer 30 but if the reflecting layer 36 were modified to fill
spaces between marks 34 and lenses 32 the reflecting layer 36 would block
light and prevent the microlens array from operating as intended. Id. at 7.
We agree. Though the Examiner states, in response, it is implicit or
obvious that the reflecting layer 36 of Takakuwa is formed on marks 34 and
fills spaces between marks (Ans. 12), these statements lack any supporting
evidence or explanation. Such conclusory statements do not support the
Examiner's finding that Takakuwa discloses a reflective layer that fills
spaces between marks of a mark layer, as recited in claim 14, or explain why
one of one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the reflecting
layer 36 so it fills spaces between such marks. The Examiner further cites
passages in column 1 of Takakuwa 7 but these passages do not disclose a
reflective layer that fills spaces between marks of a mark layer, as recited in
claim 14. As noted by Appellant, 8 "'rejections on obviousness grounds
cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness."' KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
In view of the above, Appellant has shown a reversible error in the
Examiner's finding that Takakuwa discloses a reflective layer that fills
7 Ans. 16.
8 Reply Br. 6.
6
Appeal2015-005143
Application 13/370,102
spaces between the marks of a mark layer, as recited in claims 14 and 31.
The Examiner's reliance on Akiyama does not cure the deficiencies of
Takakuwa discussed above. Each of the dependent claims include the
limitation at issue from independent claims 14 or 31, respectively.
Therefore, the Examiner's erroneous finding extends to these dependent
claims as well.
For the reasons set forth above, the Examiner's§ 103 rejections are
not sustained.
DECISION
On the record before us and for the reasons given in Appellant's
Appeal and Reply Briefs, we reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 14--17, 20-22, 31, 34--36, and 38--41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Takakuwa alone or in combination with Akiyama.
REVERSED
7