Appeal 2007-3372
Application 10/651,351
image best focusing position and corrections thereof taught or suggested by
Takahashi would have been directed at.
Moreover, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that
Yasuzato is not combinable with Takahashi because Yasuzato alters the
wavelength of light using a mask whereas Takahashi alters the light source
to modify the wave length of the light employed (Reply Br. 4; Br. 8 and 9).
Appellant has not buttressed this argument with persuasive evidence
establishing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have possessed less
than the level of skill required to select either one or both of these known
methods of light wavelength adjustment for use in photoresist pattern
formation wherein the mask pattern image applied to the photoresist is
adjusted for spherical aberration given the combined teachings of these
references. In this regard, Yasuzato discloses that the phase shifting mask
embodiments thereof are “applicable with no restriction on the exposure
light and the exposing system” (Yasuzato, col. 12, ll. 38-40).
On balance, we determine that the evidence of obviousness presented
by the Examiner outweighs the arguments in favor of an unobviousness
holding furnished in the Briefs for the rejected claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-10.
Concerning claims 3, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19-22, 24, 25, 29, and 30,
Appellant presents substantially the same argument against the Examiner’s
obviousness holding.4 Hence, we select claim 11 as the representative claim
for rejected claims 11, 12, 14, 15, 19-22, 24, 25, 29, and 30 with claim 3
being separately considered in so far as the arguments made for claim 1.
However, we do not find the arguments made against the Examiner’s
4 For dependent claims 3, this argument is in addition to the arguments made
with regard to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, the claim from which
claim 3 depends.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013