Appeal 2007-3372
Application 10/651,351
selecting a nonzero spherical aberration value using the equation:
where a is the nonzero spherical aberration value of the mask pattern
image, n is a refractive index of the photoresist, t is a thickness of
photoresist, and s is a focal distance into the photoresist;
introducing the nonzero spherical aberration value to the mask pattern
image; and
irradiating the photoresist with the mask pattern image including the nonzero
spherical aberration value.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Takahashi US 5,831,715 Nov. 3, 1998
Yasuzato US 5,935,738 Aug. 10, 1999
Nozue US 5,432,587 Jul. 11, 1995
Claims 1-4, 9-12, 14, 15, 19-22, 24, 25, 29, and 30 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of
Yasuzato. Claims 6-8, 16-18, and 26-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Yasuzato and
Nozue.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections. Our reasoning follows.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations. See Graham v.
John Deere of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013