Ex Parte Sorg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 6, 2018

14843338 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/843,338 09/02/2015
26161 7590 12/10/2018
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO)
P.O. BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Franz Sorg
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.
42047-0021003 9843
EXAMINER
KIM,PETERB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2882
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/10/2018 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRANZ SORG, PETER DEUFEL, and TORALF GRUNER
Appeal 2018-005501
Application 14/843,338 1
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
McGEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellant seeks our review of the
Examiner's rejection of claims 54---60 and 62-74. Br. 3--4.
We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We affirm.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Carl Zeiss SMT GmbH, which is also identified
as the real party in interest. Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-005501
Application 14/843,338
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal is directed to "a microlithography
projection exposure system having optical corrective elements configured to
modify the imaging characteristics." Spec. 1: 10-11.
Claim 54 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter, and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
54. A system comprising:
a holding frame;
a first optical corrective element held by the holding frame;
a second optical corrective element held by the holding frame so
that the second optical corrective element is replaceable and so that the
second optical corrective element is manipulable; and
Br. 5.
a third optical corrective element,
wherein:
the first optical corrective element is configured to correct
imaging defects of the system;
the second optical corrective element is configured to
correct imaging defects of the system;
the third optical corrective element is configured to correct
imaging defects of the system;
in a first state of the system which is before replacement
of the second optical corrective element:
the second optical corrective element is held by the
holding frame; and
the third optical corrective element is held by the
device; and
in a second state of the system which is after replacement
of the second optical corrective element:
the second optical corrective element is held by the
device; and
the third optical corrective element is held by the
holding frame; and
the system is a microlithography projection exposure system.
2
Appeal 2018-005501
Application 14/843,338
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claims 54---60 and 62-74 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 2nd paragraph as
indefinite (Final 2);
II. Claims 54---60, 62---68, and 70-74 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Shiraishi2 in view of Hamatani3 and Horiuchi4
(Final 3-11 );
III. Claim 69 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Shiraishi,
Hamatani, and Horiuchi, and further in view of Suzuki 5 (Final 11 ).
OPINION
Rejection I
When the appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection to the
Board, ... the Board may treat any argument with respect to that
ground of rejection as waived. In the event of such a waiver, the
PTO may affirm the rejection of the group of claims that the
examiner rejected on that ground without considering the merits
of those rejections.
Hyattv. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Appellant does not address Rejection I, so we summarily sustain it.
Rejections II and III
Appellant addresses the claims rejected under Rejection II as a group,
and does not present additional arguments directed to claim 69 rejected
under Rejection III. We, therefore, address these rejections together.
2 US 5,610,684, issued March 11, 1997.
3 US 2006/0007418 Al, published January 12, 2006.
4 JP 6177007, published December 11, 2014 (as translated June 8, 2017).
5 US 2002/012109 Al, published January 31, 2002.
3
Appeal 2018-005501
Application 14/843,338
We have considered the argument section of Appellant's Brief (Br. 3-
4) and are unpersuaded that Appellant has identified reversible error in the
Examiner's rejections. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365---66 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Therefore, we sustain each of the obviousness rejections based on the
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments expressed by
the Examiner in the Final Action and in the Answer. We add the following.
Appellant's assertion (Br. 3) that "the Examiner did not appear to give
appropriate weight to the fact that Horiuchi deals with substantially different
subject matter compared to Shiraishi and Hamatani" is deficient because it
fails to address the Examiner's obviousness position with any reasonable
specificity. The same is true for Appellant's naked assertion that the
combination of references does not result in the claimed subject matter. Id.
As such, Appellant does not identify any error in the findings, rationales, or
legal authorities presented by the Examiner in support of the obviousness
conclusion. Final 3-12; Ans. 2-5. On this appeal record, the Examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness which Appellant has not
specifically addressed, much less convincingly rebutted.
Appellant's deficient assertions notwithstanding, we observe that
Horiuchi does not appear to "deal[] with substantially different subject
matter" than Shiraishi and Hamatani as Appellant asserts. Br. 3. Horiuchi
deals with a "projection aligner which carries out projection exposure"
techniques. Horiuchi ,r 1. Shiraishi is directed to "[a] projection exposure
apparatus," as is Hamatani. Shiraishi, Abstract; Hamatani, Abstract.
Rejections II and III are sustained.
4
Appeal 2018-005501
Application 14/843,338
DECISION
The Examiner's final decision to reject claims 54---60 and 62-74 is
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
5