Ex Parte Baluswamy - Page 8

               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