13235866 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2017)

Ex Parte Zellner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 15, 2017

13235866 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office 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. 13/235,866 09/19/2011 Johannes Zellner 21070-0074001 / 9336 P101612US 26161 7590 09/19/2017 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO) P.O. BOX 1022 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022 EXAMINER PERSAUD, DEORAM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2882 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/19/2017 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): PATDOCTC@fr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHANNES ZELLNER, AURELIAN DODOC, MARCO PRETORIUS, CHRISTOPH MENKE, WILHELM ULRICH, and HANS-JUERGEN MANN Appeal 2016-002940 Application 13/235,866 Technology Center 2800 Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 3—8, and 11—39, which are all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Carl Zeiss SMT GmbH. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2016-002940 Application 13/235,866 INVENTION Appellants’ invention relates to imaging optics and projection exposure installation for microlithography. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows: 1. An imaging optics, comprising: a plurality of mirrors configured to image an object field in an object plane into an image field in an image plane along an imaging beam path; and a stop arranged in a pupil plane, wherein: the pupil plane is in the imaging beam path between the object field and the image field; the pupil plane is tilted at an angle greater than 0.1° relative to the object plane; the plurality of mirrors comprises more than four mirrors; the image plane extends parallel to the object plane; and the imaging optics is a microlithography projection optics. REJECTION Claims 1, 3—8, and 11—39 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Ono et al. (US 2009/0135510 Al; published May 28, 2009) (“Ono”) and Schuster (US 2008/0165426 Al; published July 10, 2008). ANALYSIS We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken. We have considered Appellants’ arguments, but do not find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for emphasis. With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants contend the cited portions of Ono do not teach the limitation “the image plane extends parallel 2 Appeal 2016-002940 Application 13/235,866 to the object plane.” See App. Br. 2-4. Appellants’ argument, however, is conclusory, merely reciting the claim limitation, the disclosures of Ono, and stating that the two are not the same. Id. Appellants have not persuasively explained why the quoted portions of Ono set forth on pages 3^4 of the Appeal Brief show that the disputed limitation would not have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill. We afford such conclusory attorney argument little weight. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 424 F.3d 1276, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Attorney argument is no substitute for evidence.”). Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that paragraph 102 of Ono teaches, or at least suggests, the disputed limitation. See Ans. 3. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that “this disclosure comes very near the end of Ono’s disclosure, and is included among other generic statements regarding alternative embodiments without providing detailed explanations regarding the impact of such embodiments on the performance of the system.” App. Br. 4—5. Appellants have not persuasively explained why the subject matter in paragraph 102, alone or in combination with the other cited teachings of Ono and Schuster, would not have rendered the disputed limitation obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981). For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Ono and Schuster teaches or suggests the disputed features of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1, as well as the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 18 and 29, which Appellants argue are 3 Appeal 2016-002940 Application 13/235,866 patentable for similar reasons. App. Br. 5. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 3—8, 11—17, 19—28, and 30—39, for which Appellants make no additional, substantive arguments. Id. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3—8, and 11—39 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)(l)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 4