Ex Parte Baluswamy - Page 10

               Appeal  2007-3372                                                                            
               Application 10/651,351                                                                       
                      projection of the reticle pattern alters the resist image                             
                      dimension for a given amount of defocus.  The difference in the                       
                      two images in the graph of Figure 2 of Takahashi result from                          
                      differences in the spherical aberration applied to a projection                       
                      rather than to the focus position of a projection.  Thus,                             
                      Takahashi does not recognize an amount of defocus, or focal                           
                      depth, as a result-effective variable which affects spherical                         
                      aberration of a projected image. The lack of such recognition                         
                      precludes a prima facie obviousness rejection because the                             
                      determination of an optimum working range for a variable is                           
                      not within one of ordinary skill in the art if the variable is not                    
                      recognized as a result-effective variable.                                            
                            The combination of Takahashi with [Yasuzato] also fails                         
                      to make obvious claim 3 because [Yasuzato] does not teach or                          
                      suggest the equation recited in claim 3.  See, In re Vaeck, 947                       
                      F.2d 488, 20 USPQ2d 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1991).                                            
               Br. 11 and 12 (emphasis omitted).                                                            
                      This argument is not persuasive of any reversible error.  In particular,              
               Takahashi’s Figure 2 “is a graph showing a relationship between a line                       
               width of the resist image and the focus position…” for a particular                          
               photoresist (Takahashi; col. 3, ll. 44-52).  The line width change (resist                   
               image dimension change) at differing focus positions with a spherical                        
               aberration of zero (solid line of Figure 2) is greater than the line width                   
               change when a predetermined spherical aberration is applied (Takahashi;                      
               col. 3, ll. 53-65; Fig. 2, broken line).                                                     
                      However, we note that the incident light would be expected to defocus                 
               or experience differing refractions while traveling through the resist material              
               to a focal location or point therein as evidenced by the differing angles that               
               the incident light would be expected to arrive with (Admitted Prior Art, Fig.                
               2).  Thus, the focal distance into the resist would have been recognized by                  
               one of ordinary skill in the art as a result effective variable for determining a            


                                                    10                                                      

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

Last modified: September 9, 2013