Appeal 2007-3372
Application 10/651,351
The analysis supporting obviousness should be made explicit and should
“identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the
art to combine the elements” in the manner claimed. KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1731, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1389 (2007).
§ 103(a) Rejection over Takahashi taken with Yasuzato.
Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 4, 9 and 10 together as a group. We
select claim 1 as the representative claim for this claim grouping.
The Examiner has determined that Takahashi discloses much of the
representative claim 1 method step requirements but that “[t]he difference
between the claims and Takahashi is that Takahashi does not disclose that
the projected pattern image is focused at approximately mid-depth of the
photoresist on the substrate” (Answer 4 and 5).
The Examiner further relies on Yasuzato as evidence of the
obviousness of the subject matter of representative claim 1. The Examiner
contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention “to modify Takahashi by employing the method of
focusing the light to ... mid-depth of the photoresist as suggested by
Yasuzato because Yasuzato, in col. 5, lines 46-54, and in col. 6, lines 1-13,
discloses that increasing the depth of focus enables the precision of the
pattern dimension to be enhanced” (Answer 5).
Appellant does not dispute that Takahashi taught or would have
suggested the representative claim 1 method but for the focus location
(approximately mid-depth of the photoresist) of the step of focusing the
altered image pattern as required by appealed claim 1 (Br. 5-9; Reply Br. 2-
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013