Rafac, Robert Jay. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 7, 2020

14979657 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 7, 2020)

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.
14/979,657 12/28/2015 Robert Jay Rafac 2012P00192US02/002-091002 2481
86823 7590 01/07/2020
ASML CIP (San Diego) / DMIPG
c/o ASML Netherlands B.V.
PO Box 324
Veldhoven, 5500 AH
NETHERLANDS
EXAMINER
CHANG, HANWAY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2881
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/07/2020 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):
contact@dmipgroup.com
docketing@dmipgroup.com
sarah.briggs@asml.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ROBERT JAY RAFAC, RICHARD L. SANDSTROM, DANIEL
JOHN WILLIAM BROWN, and KAI-CHUNG HOU
____________________

Appeal 2018-0041531
Application 14/979,657
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL2

STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant3 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1 and 3 through 23. Claim 2 has been canceled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 This application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application Serial No.
14/489,411, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,232,623 on January 5, 2016,
filed on September 17, 2014, and claims the benefit of the filing date of
January 22, 2014, of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/930,392.
2 An Oral Hearing for this appeal scheduled for December 6, 2019, was
waived.
3 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
Appeal 2018-004153
Application 14/979,657

2
We REVERSE the Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness
rejections of all pending claims.
Appellant’s Disclosed Invention
Appellant’s disclosed invention is a method and system for producing
an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) light source (see generally Spec. 1:10–5:3;
Abstract; Title; Figs. 2A, 11–13) that emits “electromagnetic radiation
having wavelengths of around 50 nm or less (also sometimes referred to as
soft x-rays), and including light at a wavelength of about 13 nm” for “use[]
in photolithography processes to produce extremely small features in
substrates, for example, silicon wafers” (Spec. 1:14–17). The production
method (Fig. 7) is performed by directing a target along a target path toward
a target location in a vacuum (Fig. 7, 710), and directing an amplified light
beam toward the target location (Fig. 7, 720) with energy sufficient enough
to convert target material at the target into plasma that emits EUV light (see
Spec. 7:15–9:28, 16:15–22:15, 29:8–33:11; Figs. 2A, 8A–C, 11–13; claims
1, 13, 22).
Exemplary Claim
Claims 1 (method), 13 (system), and 22 (photolithography system) are
independent claims, and each recite emission of EUV light through the use
of non-orthogonal propagation (path of the amplified light beam) and target
(path of target toward the target location in the vacuum) paths (see claims 1,

37 C.F.R. § 1.42. “The word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers to the
inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as
provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as ASML Netherlands B.V. (Appeal Br.
1).
Appeal 2018-004153
Application 14/979,657

3
13, 22). Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal, with emphases and
bracketed lettering added, reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
[1] directing a target along a target path toward a target
location in a vacuum chamber, the target comprising target
material in a geometric distribution that comprises a first extent
in a first dimension, the first dimension being along a first
direction, and a second extent in a second dimension, the
second dimension being along a second direction, the first and
second direction being orthogonal directions, the second extent
being greater than the first extent; and
[2] directing an amplified light beam toward the target
location, the amplified light beam traveling along a propagation
path and having an energy sufficient to convert at least some of
the target material in the target to a plasma that emits EUV
light, wherein
[2A] the propagation path and the target path are
non-orthogonal at the target location,
[2B] a portion of the target that extends in the
second direction receives the amplified light beam, and
[2C] the propagation path and the second direction
are non-orthogonal at the target location such that a
reflection produced by an interaction between the
amplified light beam and the portion of the target
propagates away from the target along the first direction.
Examiner’s Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3–11, 13–19, 22, and 23 as being
anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) by Yanagida et al. (US
2010/0181503 A1; published July 22, 2010) (hereinafter, “Yanagida”).
Final Act. 2–4.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 12, 20, and 21 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Yanagida and Bykanov et al. (US
Appeal 2018-004153
Application 14/979,657

4
7,491,954 B2; issued February 17, 2009) (hereinafter, “Bykanov”). Final
Act. 4–5.

ISSUES
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 4–
19) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1–7), the following issue is presented on
appeal:4
Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in in rejecting
(1) claims 1, 3–11, 13–19, 22, and 23 as being anticipated under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) by Yanagida; and (2) claims 12, 20, and
21 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the
combination of Yanagida and Bykanov, because the Examiner
has not sufficiently shown Yanagida discloses, teaches, or
suggests (i) directing a target along a target path toward a target
location (see e.g., claim 1, limitation 1); and (ii) directing an
amplified light beam toward a target location along a
propagation path (see e.g., claim 1, limitation 2), wherein “the
propagation path and the target path are non-orthogonal at the
target location” as recited in limitation [2A] of independent
claim 1 (emphasis added), and as commensurately similarly
recited in remaining independent claims 13 and 22?

4 We recognize that Appellant’s arguments present additional issues. We
were persuaded of error by the issue presented as to limitation 2A, and as
such we do not reach the additional issues as this issue is dispositive of the
appeal.
Appeal 2018-004153
Application 14/979,657

5
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 requires “directing a target along a target path” (see e.g.,
claim 1, limitation 1) and “directing an amplified light beam” (see e.g.,
claim 1, limitation 2), where “the propagation path and the target path are
non-orthogonal” (see e.g., claim 1, limitation 2A (emphasis added)).
Remaining independent claims 13 and 22 recite commensurate limitations
regarding the propagation and target paths being non-orthogonal at a target
location (see claims 13, 22).
We agree with Appellant’s contentions (Appeal. Br. 5–9; Reply Br. 4–
6) that Yanagida has not been shown to disclose limitation 2A recited in
claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 13 and 22. Specifically, with regard
to claims 1, 13, and 22, we agree with Appellant’s arguments that (i)
Yanagida fails to disclose any light beam for emitting EUV light that has a
propagation path non-orthogonal to a target path as recited in limitation 2A
(Appeal Br. 5–8; Reply Br. 4–5); and (ii) combining Yanagida’s laser beams
1 and 2 is improper and would not yield the amplified light beam recited in
the claims as being propagated along a path non-orthogonal to the target
path at the target location, i.e., limitation 2A (Reply Br. 4–6).
Notably, the Examiner’s anticipation rejection in the Final Rejection
fails to map any portion of Yanagida to limitation 2A (see Final Act. 3).
Specifically, in the statement of the anticipation rejection in the Final Office
Action, the Examiner maps limitations 1 (see Final Act. 2 citing Yanagida
Figs. 1, 2B; ¶¶ 72, 86), 2, 2B, and 2C (see Final Act. 3 citing Yanagida Figs.
1, 2A–C; ¶ 78) to portions of Yanagida, but omits any discussion of, or
mapping of any portions in Yanagida to, limitation 2A (wherein “the
propagation path and the target path are non-orthogonal at the target
Appeal 2018-004153
Application 14/979,657

6
location”) (see Final Act. 2–3). The Examiner relies on Yanagida’s laser
apparatuses 9 through 11 (see Fig. 1, where laser apparatuses 9–11 emit
laser beams 1–3) as disclosing the directed “amplified light beam” recited in
limitation 2 of claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 13 and 22 (see Final
Act. 3). Then, in response to Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief –
that none of the laser beams 1 through 3 meet (i) limitation 2A recited in
claims (see Appeal Br. 7–8), and/or the commensurate limitations recited in
claims 13 and 22 (Appeal Br. 9) – the Examiner concedes that main-pulse
laser apparatus 9 generates a laser beam 2 on a propagation path that is
orthogonal to the target path at the target path location, and then speculates
the laser beams 1 and 2 must be “working together to prepare the droplet
target to form a plasma” to produce the arrangement shown in Yanagida’s
Figure 1, where “at least one of the two lasers is non-orthogonal to the path
of the target droplet” (Ans. 3).
In this light, the Examiner has not articulated a satisfactory or rational
explanation as to how/why Yanagida discloses disputed limitation 2A in
claim 1, and/or the commensurate limitations in claims 13 and 22, of the
target path being non-orthogonal to the propagation path at the target
location. At best, the Examiner leaves us to speculate as to which laser
beam or combination of laser beams shown in Yanagida one of ordinary
skill in the art might somehow modify to meet the disputed “non-
orthogonal” limitation recited in claims 1, 13, and 22. We will not resort to
speculation or assumptions to cure the deficiencies in the Examiner’s fact
finding and reasoning. See Warner, 379 F.2d at 1017; Ex parte Braeken,
54 USPQ2d 1110, 1112 (BPAI 1999) (unpublished) (“The review
authorized by 35 U.S.C. [§] 134 is not a process whereby the examiner . . .
Appeal 2018-004153
Application 14/979,657

7
invite[s] the [B]oard to examine the application and resolve patentability in
the first instance.”).
We do not agree with the Examiner’s speculation as to the
combination of laser beams 1 and 2 working together to produce the subject
matter recited in limitation 2A of claim 1, and commensurately recited in
claims 13 and 22, and find it conclusory. Instead, we agree with Appellant
that the Examiner has not sufficiently shown Figures 1 and 2A through C
and the accompanying text disclose, teach, or suggest a non-orthogonal
relationship between the propagation path of an amplified light beam and a
target path of a target at a target location. Therefore, Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has not shown Yanagida discloses the method
of emitting EUV light including limitation 2A recited in claim 1, and
commensurately recited in claims 13 and 22, are persuasive.
In view of the foregoing, Appellant has established that the Examiner
erred in determining that Yanagida anticipates independent claims 1, 13, and
22. Further, because the Examiner relies on Yanagida’s teachings in
reaching the conclusions of obviousness for claims 12, 20, and 21 (which
depend respectively from claims 1 and 13), Appellant has also established
the Examiner erred in determining that claims 12, 20, and 21 would have
been obvious in view of the combination of Yanagida and Bykanov.
Because Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1)
claims 1, 3–11, 13–19, 22, and 23 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(2) by Yanagida; and (2) claims 12, 20, 21 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of Yanagida and Bykanov, the
anticipation rejection of claims 1, 3–11, 13–19, 22, and 23 and obviousness
rejection of claims 12, 20, and 21, both based on Yanagida, are reversed.
Appeal 2018-004153
Application 14/979,657

8

CONCLUSION
For all of the reasons above, we hold as follows:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–11,
13–19, 22,
23
102(a)(2) Yanagida 1, 3–11,
13–19, 22,
23
12, 20, 21 103 Yanagida,
Bykanov
12, 20, 21
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–23

REVERSED