Ex Parte Troost et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 31, 2013

11580134 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/580,134 10/13/2006 Kars Zeger Troost 1857.2980001 5417
26111 7590 01/02/2014
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
WHITESELL GORDON, STEVEN H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2882
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/02/2014 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 KARS ZEGER TROOST and ARNO JAN BLEEKER
____________

Appeal 2011-012282
Application 11/580,134
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL
The named inventors (hereinafter the “Appellants”)1 seek our review under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a rejection of claims 12-14 and 16. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm for the reasons given by the Examiner.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a lithographic apparatus that applies a desired
pattern onto a target portion of a substrate. Specification (“Spec.”) 0002-0003.
Representative claim 12 is reproduced below:

1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as “ASML Netherlands B.V.”
Appeal Brief filed February 16, 2011 (“App. Br.”) at 4.
Appeal 2011-012282
Application 11/580,134

2
12. A lithographic apparatus comprising:
a patterning device configured to pattern a beam;
a projection system configured to project the patterned beam
onto a target portion of a substrate, the patterned beam comprising a
plurality of pixels, each pixel delivering a respective radiation dose to
the target portion; and
a controller configured to control at least one area of the
patterning device to selectively adopt one of at least three states, the
states comprising:
a nominal black state, in which the at least one area
interacts with the beam to make a minimum contribution to the
radiation dose delivered by a corresponding pixel in the
plurality of pixels;
at least one nominal grey state, in which the at least one
area interacts with the beam as to make an increased
contribution, compared to the nominal black state, to the
radiation dose delivered by the corresponding pixel in the
plurality of pixels; and
at least one nominal white state, in which the at least one
area interacts with the beam to make a contribution to the
radiation dose delivered to the corresponding pixel in the
plurality of pixels greater than that in the at least one nominal
grey state,
wherein during a normal mode the controller controls the
patterning device, such that multiple ones of the at least one area
adopts one of the nominal black state or the at least one nominal grey
state,
wherein during a compensation mode the controller selectively
controls the area to adopt the at least one nominal white state only to
provide compensation for effects of one or more pixels of the plurality
of pixels when the one or more pixels are defective.
App. Br. 19 (Claims App’x).
Appeal 2011-012282
Application 11/580,134

3
The Examiner rejected claims 12-14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nelson2 in view of Markandey.34 Examiner’s Answer mailed
May 6, 2011 (“Ans.”) 3-7.

DISCUSSION
The Appellants argue the claims together. App. Br. 17. Therefore, we
confine our discussion to claim 12, which we select as representative. Claims 13,
14, and 16 stand or fall with claim 12. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The Examiner finds that Nelson discloses a lithographic apparatus
comprising a patterning device and a controller that controls a nominal black state
and a nominal grey state during a normal mode as required by claim 12. Ans. 4-5.
The Examiner further finds that Nelson “does not teach the controller provides a
third state, wherein the third state is at least one nominal white state” and “a
compensation mode [wherein] the controller selectively controls the area to adopt
the at least one nominal white state onto to provide compensation for effects of one
or more pixels” as required by the claim. Id. at 5. The Examiner determines that
“[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to incorporate the white state and compensation mode as
taught by Markandey in the exposure apparatus as taught by Nelson, because this

2 U.S. Patent 5,523,193 issued June 4, 1996.
3 U.S. Patent 5,504,504 issued April 2, 1996.
4 The Examiner also rejected claims 12-14 and 16 on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 33-37 and 39 of U.S. Patent
7,123,348. Office Action mailed November 18, 2010 at 3; see Ans. 3 (maintaining
all rejections). Appellants do not argue the double patenting rejection and assert
that a Terminal Disclaimer will be filed to obviate the rejection. App. Br. 11. A
Terminal Disclaimer has not been filed in the Application, therefore we summarily
affirm the obviousness-type double patenting rejection of all of the claims.
Appeal 2011-012282
Application 11/580,134

4
could allow for lessening the effect of a defective pixel on the exposure of a
photoresist by providing an adequate amount of radiation, reducing the likelihood
of improper pattern formation on the substrate that could result in an inoperable
semiconductor device.” Id. at 6.
The Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection is flawed because the
combination of Markandey with Nelson “is improper since the radiation dose
associated with each of the nominal black, grey and white states as claimed is
relative to each of the states.” App. Br. 13. The Appellants further contend that
“[t]here is no way to know the relative radiation dose when comparing the states
described by Nelson and Markandey.” Id. at 14. Appellants’ position is that “if
the radiation dose of [the white state of] Markandy is lesser than the radiation does
[sic] in the grey state of Nelson, then the alleged white state of Markandey cannot
be the same as the claimed white state.” Id. at 13.
Thus, the dispositive issue arising from these contentions is:
Did the Appellants show reversible error in the Examiner’s conclusion that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to control a white
state “to make a contribution greater than that in the at least one nominal grey state
. . . to provide compensation for effects of one or more pixels of the plurality of
pixels when the one or more pixels are defective,” as recited in claim 12, in view
of the applied prior art?
We do not find any of the Appellants’ arguments persuasive.
As pointed out by the Examiner, “the white state of Markandey must be
brighter than a grey state in order to compensate for an adjacent black state.” Ans.
8. According to Markandey, the compensating pixels have a higher intensity than
the intended state. Markandey Fig. 5, col. 7, ll. 1-28. In Figure 5, the center pixel
is defective and stuck in an off state or black state of “0” while the intended state is
Appeal 2011-012282
Application 11/580,134

5
180 or a grey state and the compensating pixels have a higher intensity or white
state at 203 than the intended grey state at 203. Id.; see Ans. 8. The Appellants do
not dispute that Markandey teaches a compensation mode wherein a white state
has a greater intensity than a grey state which, in turn, has a greater intensity than a
black state. See generally App. Br; see generally Reply Br. Nor do Appellants
dispute that Nelson teaches a normal mode where a grey state has a greater
intensity than a black state. Id. Appellants do not direct us to any evidence that
would rebut the Examiner’s finding that the combined teachings of Nelson and
Markandey teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art of lithography the
relative intensities of a black, grey, and white state in a lithographic apparatus
within the scope of claim 12. Appellants’ assertion that “[o]ne of ordinary skill is
left only to guess as to what the relative values are when comparing the references”
is not persuasive. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. [unnumbered page 3]. See In re Geisler,
116 F.3d 1465, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (argument by counsel cannot take the place
of evidence). It is not necessary for the cited art to precisely teach “the specific
subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Therefore, we
find no error in the Examiner’s conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it obvious to compensate for a defective pixel in the lithographic
apparatus of Nelson with a white state that has a greater intensity than the grey
state in view of Markandey’s teachings.
For these reasons, we uphold the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a).

Appeal 2011-012282
Application 11/580,134

6
SUMMARY

The Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 12-14 and 16
as unpatentable over the combination of Nelson and Markandy is affirmed. The
Examiner’s obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 12-14 and 16 is
summarily 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

sld