Ex Parte Baluswamy - Page 11

               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