Ex Parte Sooriyakumaran et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 11, 2016

13530004 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/530,004 06/21/2012 RATNAM SOORIYAKUMARAN
134824 7590 07111/2016
DeLio, Peterson & Curcio, LLC
700 State Street
Suite 402
New Haven, CT 06511
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.
ARC920120035US 1 5687
EXAMINER
MALLOY, ANNA E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1722
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
07/11/2016 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
Exparte RATNAM SOORIYAKUMARAN,
LINDA K. SUNDBERG and
ANKITVORA
Appeal2015-001567
Application 13/530,004
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-17 and 26-34. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2015-001567
Application 13/530,004
Independent claims 1 and 26 read (emphasis added to highlight
disputed claim limitations):
1. A photoresist composition comprising:
(a) a hydrophobic polymer comprising (i) at least one
non-polar acid-stable group; and (ii) at least one non-polar acid-
labile group, wherein the hydrophobic polymer does not have
any polar groups; and
(b) a photo acid generator (P AG),
wherein upon pattemwise exposure of the composition to
radiation, the P AG dissociates to form a photo acid that reacts
with the at least one non-polar acid-labile group resulting in
increased polarity of the hydrophobic polymer, and further
wherein upon development of the exposed composition with an
organic hydrocarbon solvent, unexposed areas of the
composition dissolve and exposed areas of the photoresist
composition remain to give a negative tone image.
26. A photoresist composition, comprising:
(a) a hydrophobic polymer comprising (i) at least one
non-polar acid-stable moiety and (ii) at least one non-polar
moiety capable of increasing polarity of the composition by
action of an acid; and
(b) a photo acid generator (P AG),
wherein upon patternwise exposure of the composition to
radiation, exposed regions of the composition are not
developable in 0.26 N TMAH developer.
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
(a) claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing
to comply with the written description requirement.
2
Appeal2015-001567
Application 13/530,004
(b) claims 7-10 rejected under 3 5 U.S. C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention,
(c) claims 1--4, 7-11, 13-17, 26, and 28-32 rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Matsuno (JP 08-101509 A, published April 16,
1996 and using a translation provided in the Final Action),
(d) claims 1-3, 7-11, 13-17, 26, and 28-32 rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fedynyshyn (US 6,680,157 Bl, issued January 20, 2004),
(e) claims 5, 6, and 33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Matsuno.
(f) claims 12 and 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Fedynyshyn, Matsuno and Ohsawa (US 2009/0269696 Al, published
October 29, 2009).
With respect to the prior art Rejections ( c ), ( d) and (f), Appellants rely
on essentially the same line of arguments in addressing independent claims 1
and 26 and the separate rejection of dependent claims 12 and 27. See
Appeal Brief, generally. Appellants do not present separate arguments
addressing any of the dependent claims in Rejections ( c }---( e ). Id.
Accordingly, for the prior art rejections, we address the independent claims
together as representative of the subject matter before us on appeal and focus
our discussion on Rejections (c) and (d). Claims 2-17 and 27-34 stand or
fall with their respective independent claim.
ANALYSIS
Non-Prior Art Rejections (a) and (b)
The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, and claims 7-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
3
Appeal2015-001567
Application 13/530,004
paragraph. We refer to the Examiner's Final Action for a statement of these
rejections. Final Act. 3-5.
Appellants indicated that they have no interest in arguing these
rejections because the unentered amendment of February 26, 2014 submitted
after the final action would have resolved these issues. App. Br. 11-12.
Given that the noted amendment is still not entered, Appellants have de facto
acquiesced to these rejections. Accordingly, we AFFIRM for the reasons
presented by the Examiner. Final Act. 3-5. 1
Prior Art Rejections (c) and (d)
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for
patentability. However, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner's§§ 102 and 103 rejections of representative
independent claims 1 and 26. Accordingly, we will sustain all of the
Examiner's rejections for essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer
and we add the following for emphasis.
Independent claims 1 and 26 are directed to photoresist compositions
having a hydrophobic polymer comprising (i) at least one non-polar acid-
stable group; and (ii) at least one non-polar acid-labile group, wherein the
hydrophobic polymer does not have any polar groups.
1 In addressing the rejections before us for review on appeal, Appellants
presents a number of arguments contesting the non-entry of an amendment
after final filed February 26, 2014 and the Examiner's objection to claim 10.
App. Br. 5-10. As noted by the Examiner (Ans. 18), these arguments
address matters not reviewable by the Board but are petitionable as
prescribed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.181. Accordingly, we will not consider such
arguments in our deliberations.
4
Appeal2015-001567
Application 13/530,004
The Examiner found Matsuno describes a resist composition including
a hydrophobic polymer comprising at least one non-polar acid-stable group
(styrene); and at least one non-polar acid-labile group ( 1-methylcyclohexyl
methacrylate) and a photo acid generator (P AG) (triphenylsulfonium
triflate ). Final Act. 5; Matsuno i-fi-125, 32, 33 (Table 1- Example 3). Thus,
the Examiner determined Matsuno anticipates the subject matter of
independent claims 1 and 26.
In a separate rejection, the Examiner found F edynyshyn teaches a
resist composition including a hydrophobic polymer comprising at least one
non-polar acid-stable group (p-hexafluoroisopropyl-styrene) and at least one
non-polar acid-labile group (t-butyl methacrylate ), and a photo acid
generator (P AG) ( di-t-butylphenyl iodonium camphor sultanate). Final Act.
6-7; Fedynyshyn col. 11, 11. 35-38, 62---63. Alternatively, the Examiner
found Fedynyshyn does not teach a specific example of the above indicated
polymer in a resist composition. Final Act. 7. The Examiner, nevertheless,
determined it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
obtain such a resist based on Fedynyshyn's teaching at column 11 of
equivalent polymers used in the resist composition of the invention. Id. The
Examiner found the claimed limitations concerning the patternwise exposure
forming a negative tone image are drawn to intended use of the composition
that do not add any patentable weight to the claim because a photoresist
composition can neither be positive nor negative before it is used but,
instead, contributes to the formation of a positive or negative pattern upon
exposure and development based on the type of developer used. Final Act.
6-8; Ans. 10-11. Thus, the Examiner determined Fedynyshyn either
5
Appeal2015-001567
Application 13/530,004
anticipates or renders obvious the subject matter of independent claims 1 and
26. Final Act. 5-7.
Appellants argue that Matsuno and Fedynyshyn are directed to a
positive tone photoresist composition that is developable in 0.26 N TMAH
while Appellants' claimed resist is a negative tone resist that does not
develop in 0.26 N TMAH as demonstrated by Comparative Example 6 in the
Specification. App. Br. 15-18; Spec. i-fi-f 110-112; Matsuno i-fi-125, 32;
Fedynyshyn col. 22-24 (Examples 9-10). Appellants also argue that the
limitation of a negative tone image upon development is a structural
limitation. App. Br. 16.
We are unpersuaded by these arguments for reasons pointed out by
the Examiner. Ans. 15-16. It is well settled that a chemical composition and
its properties are inseparable. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709 (Fed Cir.
1990) ("Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually
exclusive properties."). Thus, when a claimed product reasonably appears to
be substantially the same as a product disclosed by the prior art, the burden
is on the applicant to prove that the prior art product does not necessarily or
inherently possess characteristics attributed to the claimed product, and that
it is of no moment whether the rejection is based on § 102 or § 103 since the
burden is on the applicant is the same. Spada, 911 F .2d at 708; In re Best,
562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977).
While Appellants argue the resist compositions of the prior art are not
negative tone resist compositions (App. Br. 15-18), we agree with the
Examiner's determination that the subject matter of independent claims 1
and 26 are directed to compositions that have not been developed and, thus,
are neither positive or negative tone. Ans. 10, 16. Moreover, Appellants
6
Appeal2015-001567
Application 13/530,004
attribute the characteristics of the claimed invention to the hydrophobic
polymers used that have improved properties, including greater polarity
switch and reduced thickness loss of the exposed areas of the resist upon
development with an organic hydrocarbon solvent. Spec. ,-r 51. However,
Appellants do not argue that the hydrophobic polymers of the cited art are
different from the claimed hydrophobic polymers. See Appeal Brief,
generally. That is, Appellants have not adequately explained a patentable
distinction between the claimed resist compositions and the resist
compositions of Matsuno and Fedynyshyn. Appellants have not directed us
to any evidence or technical reason why the claimed resist compositions do
not develop in 0.26 N TMAH while the resist compositions of the prior art
do. Absent a showing to the contrary, a preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner's reasonable position that the resist compositions of
Matsuno anticipates, and the resist compositions of Fedynyshyn anticipates
or renders obvious the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 26. Final
Act. 5-7.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's prior art rejections of claims
1-17 and 26-34 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) (Rejections (c}-(f)) for the reasons
presented by the Examiner and given above.
ORDER
The Examiner's rejections of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, and of claims 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
(Rejections (a) and (b)) are affirmed.
The Examiner's prior art rejections of claims 1-17 and 26-34
(Rejections ( c }-( f)) are affirmed.
7
Appeal2015-001567
Application 13/530,004
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)(l).
AFFIRMED
8