Appeal 2007-3372
Application 10/651,351
rejection of claim 3, which are based on the features thereof common with
claim 1, to be persuasive for the reasons we stated above with respect to the
rejection of claim 1. Thus, we focus on representative claim 11 in
considering Appellant’s arguments regarding rejected claims 3, 11, 12, 14,
15, 19-22, 24, 25, 29, and 30. These arguments are directed at the alleged
non-obviousness of the claimed process based on the use of a specified
equation for selection of a nonzero spherical aberration value that is
introduced or added to the mask pattern image used in treating the
photoresist (Br. 10-16; Reply Br. 4-8). This equation can be found in claim
11, reproduced above.
Regarding representative claim 11, the Examiner basically takes the
position that the equation is an expression of an optimization of three known
result effective factors or variables; that is, the photoresist refractive index
(n), the thickness of the photoresist layer (t), and the focal distance into the
photoresist (s) with the equation representing an optimization expression for
assessing the spherical aberration value to be applied or introduced into the
mask pattern image as a correction to the image so as to take spherical
aberration of the projected mask image into account (Answer 5, 9, and 10,
Takahashi, col. 3, l. 34 –col. 4, l. 5 and col. 6, ll. 25-30).
Appellant does not dispute that the photoresist refractive index and
thickness would have been known or suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art as result effective variables for determining a nonzero spherical
aberration correction value based on the disclosure of Takahashi. Nor does
Appellant dispute that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill
in the art to derive a nonzero spherical aberration adjustment formula, as
required by representative claim 11, if the focal distance into the photoresist
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013