Appeal 2007-3372
Application 10/651,351
nonzero spherical aberration correction value for the mask image to be
projected into a particular photoresist. This is in accord with the Examiner’s
position that Takahashi (with or without Yasuzato) reasonably teaches or
would have suggested that the focal distance to be traveled in a medium
(resist material) is a result effective variable for determining the optimum
corrective spherical aberration value to be applied to a mask image that is to
be projected into a particular photoresist (Answer 8-10). In this regard,
Appellant’s acknowledgement that refraction of incident light would occur
in differing amounts (defocusing) in correlation with Snell’s Law
(Specification ¶ 0008) appears to undercut Appellant’s argument for the
patentability of these claims based on an asserted lack of result effectiveness
of the focal distance into the photoresist (s) parameter. In other words, the
result effectiveness of this variable in setting a corrective spherical
aberration value would be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art
familiar with Snell’s Law. Thus, the Examiner’s determination that the focal
distance (focal position in the resist) is a result effective variable for the
determination of an optimum corrective spherical aberration value appears to
be reasonable on this record.
It follows that we shall sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
over Takahashi taken with Yasuzato.
As for the separate obviousness rejection of dependent claims 6-8, 16-
18, and 26-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Takahashi in view of Yasuzato and Nozue, we note that Appellant rests on
the arguments made with respect to the independent claims. Appellant does
not furnish any additional arguments against the Examiner’s additional
application of Nozue to these claims Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 9).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013