Ex Parte Baluswamy - Page 9

               Appeal  2007-3372                                                                            
               Application 10/651,351                                                                       
               was a known result effective variable like the other two result effective                    
               variables used in the equation.  Rather, Appellant contends that the focal                   
               distance (amount of defocus, or focal depth) into the substrate (s) is not                   
               recognized as a result effective variable by Takahashi (Br. 10-16; Reply Br.                 
               4-8).  We are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s                            
               obviousness determination based on this line of argument, as furnished in                    
               the Briefs.                                                                                  
                      At the outset, we note that the question raised by this line of argument              
               as presented in the Briefs may be more properly asked as follows.  Has                       
               Appellant established reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness                         
               rejection of representative claim 11 (as well as separately considered claim                 
               3)  by the contention that the applied references, including Takahashi, would                
               not have taught, suggested or otherwise led one of ordinary skill in the art to              
               the determination or recognition that the focal distance into the substrate is a             
               result effective variable (in addition to the other two claimed factors) for                 
               optimizing the amount of correction to be applied to the mask pattern image                  
               of Takahashi that is to be projected into a photoresist.  We answer this                     
               question in the negative on this record.                                                     
                      Here, the thrust of Appellant’s argument is that:                                     
                            The Final Action argues that Takahashi recognizes a                             
                      relationship between the line width change relative to the                            
                      degree of defocus, which allegedly satisfies the requirement                          
                      that the focal distance is recognized by Takahashi as a result-                       
                      effective variable. This is not the case.  In particular, the graph                   
                      in Figure 2 of Takahashi represents "a relationship between a                         
                      line width of the resist image and the focus position provided as                     
                      a result of projecting the reticle 6 pattern onto the wafer 8 with                    
                      a certain spherical aberration."  See, Takahashi at col. 3, lines                     
                      44-47 (emphasis added).  The focus position has no effect on                          
                      the line width; rather, the spherical aberration applied to the                       

                                                     9                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013