Appeal No. 95-3854
Application 07/976,162
Claims 1 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Malsky in view of Endo, Petit, Wakimoto
and the Bennett patents.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
10.
The two patents to Bennett, Endo and Wakimoto are cited by
the examiner to show that it is well known to use telecentric
lenses in image projection systems. According to the examiner
(Answer, page 6):
it is widely known by those skilled in the art that a
telecentric lens system should be used for projecting
the image of the reticle onto the wafer in order to
minimize the detrimental effects of a narrow depth of
field.
If such a practice is known to be advantages [sic,
advantageous] when projecting a two-dimensional pattern
onto a two-dimensional surface, then it should go
without saying that it would be even more so when
projecting a three-dimensional pattern onto a three-
dimensional member.
Thus, it is the examiner's position (Answer, pages 6 and 7)
that:
Malsky and Petit show that the practice of
projecting the image of a three-dimensional original
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007