Patent No. 8,233,137
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`Nikon Corporation
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ASML Netherlands B.V.
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 8,233,137
`Issue Date: July 31, 2012
`Title: LITHOGRAPHIC APPARATUS AND
`DEVICE MANUFACTURING METHOD
`_______________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. ______
`____________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF CHRIS A. MACK
`
`
`
`
`
`Nikon Exhibit 1002 Page 1
`
`
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`Nikon Corporation
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ASML Netherlands B.V.
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 8,233,137
`Issue Date: July 31, 2012
`Title: LITHOGRAPHIC APPARATUS AND
`DEVICE MANUFACTURING METHOD
`_______________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. ______
`____________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF CHRIS A. MACK
`
`
`
`
`
`Nikon Exhibit 1002 Page 1
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Chris A. Mack, make this declaration in connection with the proceeding
`
`identified above.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Nikon Corporation (“Nikon”)
`
`as a technical expert in connection with the proceeding identified above. I submit
`
`this declaration in support of Nikon’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of United
`
`States Patent No. 8,233,137 (“the '137 patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being paid at an hourly rate for my work on this matter. I
`
`have no personal or financial stake or interest in the outcome of the present
`
`proceeding.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`3.
`
`I have over thirty years of academic and industry experience in the
`
`field of photolithography, which is a part of semiconductor manufacturing.
`
`Currently, I am an adjunct professor at the University of Texas at Austin in the
`
`Electrical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, and Statistics and Scientific
`
`Computation departments, and also serve as an author, instructor, and independent
`
`consultant on photolithography-related issues. I am also a consultant at
`
`Lithoguru.com, specializing in semiconductor lithography. A complete list of my
`
`credentials is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Nikon Exhibit 1002 Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`I earned Bachelor of Science degrees in Physics, Electrical
`
`Engineering, Chemistry, and Chemical Engineering in 1982 from Rose-Hulman
`
`Institute of Technology. I earned a Master of Science degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering in 1989 from the University of Maryland at College Park, and
`
`received my doctorate in Chemical Engineering in 1998 from the University of
`
`Texas at Austin.
`
`5.
`
`I have held a number of positions in the semiconductor and
`
`photolithography industry. Early on in my career, from 1982 until 1990, I worked
`
`as an engineer in the Microelectronics Research Laboratory of the National
`
`Security Agency at Fort Meade, Maryland. During that time, I was tasked with
`
`performing research for present and future agency needs in the area of
`
`microlithography for semiconductor processing. From 1990 to 1991, I worked as
`
`an assignee of the Department of Defense to SEMATECH, which is a consortium
`
`of major semiconductor companies.
`
`6.
`
`In 1990, I founded FINLE Technologies, a photolithography
`
`simulation software company. For the next ten years, I served as President and
`
`Chief Technical Officer of FINLE, where I had overall responsibility for corporate
`
`management and strategic planning for the company, which included developing
`
`new technologies and overseeing lithography research. During that time, the
`
`company grew from US$60,000 to US$2.5 million in annual revenue. Among my
`
`
`
`2
`
`Nikon Exhibit 1002 Page 3
`
`
`
`
`accomplishments at FINLE was the development of two products that serve as the
`
`industry standard in photolithography software: the PROLITH ToolkitTM of
`
`lithography simulation software and the ProDATA suite of data analysis software.
`
`7.
`
`In 2000, semiconductor equipment supplier KLA-Tencor, a
`
`Fortune 500 company, acquired FINLE Technologies. From 2000 until 2005, I
`
`served as Vice President of Lithography Technology for KLA-Tencor Corporation,
`
`where I provided strategic vision on all lithography-related products for KLA-
`
`Tencor, which included directing research efforts for lithography simulation,
`
`lithography process control, optical and scanning electron microscope critical
`
`dimension metrology, and optical overlay metrology. KLA-Tencor continues to
`
`sell PROLITH and ProDATA software.
`
`8.
`
`In addition to my direct experience in the semiconductor industry
`
`through employment or leadership roles in semiconductor companies, I have had
`
`extensive involvement in lithography-related industry organizations. For example,
`
`from 1992 to 1996, I served as Chairman of the Lithography Technical Working
`
`Group of the Optical Society of America, and I have chaired major lithography
`
`conferences held in Singapore and Scotland. Currently, I am an editor-in-chief of
`
`the Journal of Micro/Nanolithography, MEMS, and MOEMS published by SPIE,
`
`and also serve on the Board of Trustees of Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology in
`
`Terre Haute, Indiana.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Nikon Exhibit 1002 Page 4
`
`
`
`
`
`9.
`
`I have been an adjunct faculty member of the University of Texas
`
`at Austin since 1991, teaching both undergraduate and graduate level courses in the
`
`Chemical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, and Statistics and Scientific
`
`Computation departments. In the fall of 2006, I was the Melchor visiting chair
`
`professor in Electrical Engineering at the University of Notre Dame. In the
`
`summer of 2011, I was an Erskine Fellow at the University of Canterbury in
`
`Christchurch, New Zealand.
`
`10.
`
`I have published extensively in the field of photolithography,
`
`including the book Field Guide to Optical Lithography, published in 2006, and the
`
`textbook Fundamental Principles of Optical Lithography: The Science of
`
`Microfabrication (John Wiley & Sons), published in 2007. I have either authored
`
`or co-authored over two hundred papers in the field of photolithography and
`
`semiconductor manufacturing. Some of the publications I have written and/or
`
`edited include:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Chris A. Mack, Fundamental Principles of Optical Lithography:
`
`The Science of Microfabrication, John Wiley & Sons (November,
`
`2007).
`
`Chris A. Mack, Field Guide to Optical Lithography, SPIE Field
`
`Guide Series Vol. FG06, (Bellingham, WA: 2006). Also available
`
`in Japanese.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Nikon Exhibit 1002 Page 5
`
`
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`C. A. Mack, Inside PROLITH: A Comprehensive Guide to Optical
`
`Lithography Simulation, FINLE Technologies (Austin, TX: 1997).
`
`– Out of Print.
`
`C.A. Mack, “Microlithography”, Chapter 9, Semiconductor
`
`Manufacturing Handbook, Hwaiyu Geng, Ed., McGraw Hill (New
`
`York: 2005).
`
`Contributed “Microlithography” entry for the McGraw Hill
`
`Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, 9th Edition (2005).
`
`Contributed lithography terms for: Comprehensive Dictionary of
`
`Electrical Engineering, Phillip A. Laplante, Ed., (CRC Press and
`
`IEEE Press, 1999).
`
`11.
`
`I have also
`
`received numerous awards
`
`in
`
`the
`
`field of
`
`semiconductor processing and lithography, including, for example:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`SPIE Frits Zernike Award for Microlithography, for
`contributions in lithography modeling and education, 2009.
`
`SEMI Award for North America, for contributions in
`lithography modeling and education, 2003.
`
`Best Paper Award, 18th Annual BACUS Symposium on
`Photomask Technology and Management, 1998.
`
`12.
`
`I am also a named inventor on fourteen United States patents
`
`relating to semiconductors and semiconductor lithography, including:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`U.S. Patent 5,363,171, Photolithography exposure tool and
`method for in situ photoresist measurements and exposure
`control, November 8, 1994.
`
`U.S. Patent 6,968,253, Computer-implemented method and
`carrier medium configured to generate a set of process
`parameters for a lithography process, November 22, 2005.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Nikon Exhibit 1002 Page 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`U.S. Patent 7,075,639, Method and Mark for Metrology of
`Phase Errors on Phase Shift Masks, July 11, 2006.
`
`U.S. Patent 7,142,941, Computer-implemented Method and
`Carrier Medium Configures to Generate a Set of Process
`Parameters and/or a List of Potential Causes of Deviations
`for a Lithography Process, November 28, 2006.
`
`U.S. Patent 7,297,453, Systems and Methods for Mitigating
`Variances on a Patterned Wafer Using a Prediction Model,
`November 20, 2007.
`
`U.S. Patent 7,300,725, Method for Determining and
`Correcting Reticle Variations, November 27, 2007.
`
`U.S. Patent 7,300,729, Method for Monitoring a Reticle,
`November 27, 2007.
`
`U.S. Patent 7,303,842, Systems and Methods for Modifying
`a Reticle’s Optical Properties, December 4, 2007.
`
`U.S. Patent 7,352,453, Method for Process Optimization and
`Control by Comparison Between 2 or More Measured
`Scatterometry Signals, April 1, 2008.
`
`U.S. Patent 7,368,208, Measuring Phase Errors on Phase
`Shift Masks, May 6, 2008.
`
`for Determining
`7,382,447, Method
`U.S. Patent
`Lithographic Focus and Exposure, June 3, 2008.
`
`U.S. Patent 7,528,953, Target Acquisition and Overlay
`Metrology Based on Two Diffracted Orders Imaging, May
`5, 2009.
`
`U.S. Patent 7,566,517, Feature Printability Optimization by
`Optical Tool, July 28, 2009.
`
`U.S. Patent 7,804,994, Overlay Metrology and Control
`Method, September 28, 2010.
`
`6
`
`Nikon Exhibit 1002 Page 7
`
`
`
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`13.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I have reviewed, among other things,
`
`the following materials: (a) the '137 patent and its prosecution history; (b) U.S.
`
`Patent 7,528,931 and its prosecution history; (c) Japanese Laid Open Patent No.
`
`H11-135,400 to Taniguchi (“Taniguchi '400”, Ex. B); (d) U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 2002/0145717 to Baselmans et al. (“Baselmans,” Ex. C); (e) U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,372,538 to Binnard (“Binnard,” Ex. D); (f) U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`2002/0167651 to Boonman (“Boonman,” Ex. E); (g) U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`2004/0263809 to Nakano (“Nakano,” Ex. F); (h) U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`2006/0103832 to Hazelton et al. (“Hazelton,” Ex. G); (i) European Patent No.
`
`1,403,714A2 to Van Der Laan (“Van Der Laan '714,” Ex. H); (j) U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 2003/0047694 to Van Der Laan (“Van Der Laan '694,” Ex. I); and
`
`(k) the Petition for Inter Partes Review of the '137 patent to which my declaration
`
`relates.
`
`IV. DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS
`
`14.
`
`I have been informed and understand that claims are construed
`
`from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed
`
`invention, and that during inter partes review, claims are to be given their broadest
`
`reasonable construction consistent with the specification.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Nikon Exhibit 1002 Page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`15.
`
`I have also been informed and understand that the subject matter of
`
`a patent claim is obvious if the differences between the subject matter of the claim
`
`and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art to which the subject matter pertains. I have also been informed that the
`
`framework for determining obviousness involves considering the following
`
`factors: (i) the scope and content of the prior art; (ii) the differences between the
`
`prior art and the claimed subject matter; (iii) the level of ordinary skill in the art;
`
`and (iv) any objective evidence of non-obviousness. I understand that the claimed
`
`subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if, for
`
`example, it results from the combination of known elements according to known
`
`methods to yield predictable results, the simple substitution of one known element
`
`for another to obtain predictable results, use of a known technique to improve
`
`similar devices in the same way or applying a known technique to a known device
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results. I have also been informed that
`
`the analysis of obviousness may include recourse to logic, judgment and common
`
`sense available to the person of ordinary skill in the art that does not necessarily
`
`require explication in any reference.
`
`16.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the
`
`'137 patent would have at least a bachelor’s degree in physics, optics, mechanical
`
`
`
`8
`
`Nikon Exhibit 1002 Page 9
`
`
`
`
`engineering or a related discipline, and at least 2-3 years of practical experience
`
`with lithography for semiconductor manufacturing.
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed that the relevant date for considering the
`
`patentability of the claims of the '137 patent is December of 2004. Based on my
`
`education and 30+ years of experience in the fields of lithography and
`
`semiconductor manufacturing, I believe I am qualified to provide opinions about
`
`how one of ordinary skill in the art in 2004 would have interpreted and understood
`
`the '137 patent and the prior art discussed below.
`
`V. THE '137 PATENT
`
`18.
`
`The '137 patent relates to a lithographic apparatus for projecting a
`
`patterned beam of radiation onto either a substrate (e.g., a silicon wafer) or at least
`
`one sensor. The '137 patent accomplishes this by using one positioning system to
`
`position the substrate table that carries a wafer, and another positioning system to
`
`position the sensor table that carries at least one sensor, into the path of a patterned
`
`beam of radiation. 1 The claims are further directed to an apparatus that uses
`
`immersion lithography, in which a liquid is provided between the exposure system
`
`and the wafer.
`
`
`
` I note that the method claims of the ‘137 patent do not mention “positioning
`
` 1
`
`system”.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Nikon Exhibit 1002 Page 10
`
`
`
`
`VI. STATE OF THE ART
`
`19.
`
`In 2004, all of the elements described in the claims of the '137
`
`patent were well known.
`
`A.
`
`20.
`
`Sensors
`
`Consider the types of sensors described in the '137 patent: “an
`
`energy sensor, a transmission image sensor, a polarization sensor, and a shearing
`
`interferometer sensor.” ('137 patent, claim 2.)
`
`21.
`
`Energy sensors come in several varieties. Small area sensors
`
`measure the energy essentially at one point, and by moving the sensor under the
`
`radiation beam, can be used to map out the uniformity of that beam. Large area
`
`sensors can provide an average energy over the exposure field. One important use
`
`of a large area sensor is to measure the total amount of light passing through the
`
`projection lens when a mask is in place. Knowing the total amount of light passing
`
`through the lens under exposure conditions allows lens heating to be predicted and
`
`compensated for. Further, these sensors can be used to detect the intensity of the
`
`radiation (that is, the power per unit area), or the exposure dose (also called
`
`exposure energy) by integrating that intensity over time. (See, e.g., U.S. Patent
`
`4,465,368 to Matsuura (Ex. J) at 4:30-51 and Taniguchi '400 at [0041].)
`
`22.
`
`Energy sensors (which include intensity sensors) are often
`
`positioned at the plane of the mask or at the plane of the wafer, or both. For
`
`
`
`10
`
`Nikon Exhibit 1002 Page 11
`
`
`
`
`example, at the plane of the mask on the mask table, an energy sensor can be used
`
`to verify the intensity of the radiation illuminating the mask, as well as its
`
`uniformity. If positioned at the plane of the wafer, for example on the wafer table,
`
`energy sensors can check the intensity and uniformity of the light after passing
`
`through the projection lens.
`
`23.
`
`Energy sensors have been used ubiquitously in lithography tools,
`
`both at the mask plane and the wafer plane, since the 1970s.
`
`24.
`
`The transmission image sensor (TIS) has been known at least since
`
`1983 (U.S. Patent 4,540,277 to Mayer (Ex. K)) and was well known by 2004.
`
`Other aerial image sensors were also well known (for example, see U.S. Patent
`
`Application 2002/0041377 to Hagiwara (Ex. L)). A technical paper authored by
`
`Hans van der Laan of ASML (“Aerial image measurement methods for fast
`
`aberration set-up and illumination pupil verification”, Optical Microlithography
`
`XIV, SPIE Vol. 4346 (2001), p. 394 (Ex. M)) describes the TIS as “a measurement
`
`device built into the wafer stage of ASML Step & Scan systems.” The TIS was
`
`“capable of measuring lateral (x,y) and axial (z) positions of aerial images” and
`
`was thus used to measure the focal plane and focal plane deviations, as well as the
`
`position deviation of the image.
`
`25.
`
`The TIS was typically mounted at the top surface of the wafer
`
`table, and generally two or more sensors were used. (See Boonman at [0067].)
`
`
`
`11
`
`Nikon Exhibit 1002 Page 12
`
`
`
`
`The sensor has an aperture or apertures on the surface of the wafer table, with a
`
`photodetector below. The apertures can be in the shape of slits (spaces) or a square
`
`hole or holes. A test pattern placed at the mask plane is projected onto the TIS
`
`pattern through the projection lens, and the specific test pattern size and shape is
`
`constructed to work with the specific aperture size and shape of the TIS. (Id.)
`
`26.
`
`The TIS has also been used to measure aberrations caused by the
`
`non-ideal imaging behavior of the projection lens. (See Van Der Laan '694, Ex. I.)
`
`Here, different test structures placed at the mask plane are projected onto the TIS,
`
`where specific test structures are designed to enable sensitivity to specific types of
`
`aberrations. (Id at [0052] – [0053] and [0074] – [0077].)
`
`27.
`
`Polarization sensors became important as the numerical aperture
`
`(NA) of the projection lens became sufficiently high. As Donis Flagello of ASML
`
`noted in a paper published in 2000, “[H]igh NA polarization effects will result in
`
`extremely tight specifications on illumination polarization on future tools.”
`
`(“Optical lithography into the millennium: Sensitivity to Aberrations, Vibration
`
`and Polarization”, Optical Microlithography XIII, SPIE Vol. 4000 (2000), p. 172
`
`(Ex. N).)
`
`28.
`
`A polarization sensor generally consists of a polarization beam
`
`splitter that directs light of different polarizations in different directions, followed
`
`by detectors for each different beam. Alternately a single detector is used with a
`
`
`
`12
`
`Nikon Exhibit 1002 Page 13
`
`
`
`
`means of selecting which polarization is to be measured. Such sensors were well
`
`known well before 2004.
`
`29.
`
`For example, the use of polarization sensors for lithography
`
`applications are described in U.S. Patent No. 5,631,731 to Sogard (Ex. O), U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 2005/0105087 to Nomura (Ex. P), U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 2004/0262500 to Mengel (Ex. Q), U.S. Patent Application No. 2004/0114150
`
`to Wegmann (Ex. R), and U.S. Patent Application No. 2005/0146704 to Gruner
`
`(Ex. S).
`
`30.
`
`A shearing interferometer sensor can be used to measure
`
`aberrations in a projection lens. A special test pattern, usually a grating, is placed
`
`at the mask plane. Usually this test pattern is placed just below a dedicated lens
`
`designed to spread the illumination out into a wider range of angles. (See
`
`Baselmans at Fig. 3A and [0003]. Van der Laan ‘714 also discloses a shearing
`
`interferometer sensor.) At the plane of the wafer an aperture, such as a pinhole,
`
`directs some of the light to a detector. Moving the test pattern or the pinhole
`
`allows measurement of aberrations caused by the projection lens.
`
`B.
`
`31.
`
`Immersion Lithography
`
`Additionally, immersion lithography was well known by 2004.
`
`For immersion lithography, the space between the lens and the wafer is filled with
`
`water. One problem posed by this arrangement is the potential for water to leak
`
`
`
`13
`
`Nikon Exhibit 1002 Page 14
`
`
`
`
`away from the lens/wafer whenever the lens reaches the edge of the wafer, or when
`
`the wafer is removed from the lens. (For a description of this problem, see Soichi
`
`Owa et al., “Advantage and feasibility of immersion lithography”, JM3 3(1) pp.
`
`97–103 (January 2004) (Ex. T), and Jan Mulkens et al., “Benefits and limitations
`
`of immersion lithography”, JM3 3(1) pp. 104–114 (January 2004) (Ex. U)).
`
`32.
`
`A solution to this problem was also well known by 2004. For
`
`example, both Binnard and Nakano describe the use of a flat plate or pad that is
`
`moved under the lens in synchronism with the wafer being moved out. In this way,
`
`the water trapped between the lens and the wafer remains under the lens, without
`
`leaking away, held up by the pad until a new wafer is ready to take its place.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`33.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion on the following two
`
`claim terms: “a property” or “a characteristic” of the beam of radiation, by
`
`discussing what one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the patent filing
`
`would regard as the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
`
`specification. My opinion agrees with the position of set forth in Nikon’s Petition
`
`for Inter Partes Review.
`
`34.
`
`Independent claims 1, 11, and 17 of the '137 patent employ the
`
`term “characteristic” with respect to sensing, whereas independent claims 20, 25,
`
`and 26 employ the term “property.” The specification refers to providing sensors
`
`
`
`14
`
`Nikon Exhibit 1002 Page 15
`
`
`
`
`to measure one or more “parameters” at column 2, lines 22-25, but does not make
`
`any separate reference to either “property” or “characteristic.” However, it is
`
`apparent to me from the claims and the specification that the terms are used
`
`synonymously. For example, dependent claims 2 and 21 recite the same types of
`
`sensors to sense a different characteristic or measure a property of the beam,
`
`respectively. Hence, nothing in the specification indicates that the terms
`
`“characteristic” and “property” have different meanings, and the terms are used
`
`synonymously in the claims. Therefore, in view of the language of the claims and
`
`the specification, it is my opinion that the terms “characteristic” and “property”
`
`should be accorded the same meaning.
`
`VIII. ANALYSIS OF PRIOR ART
`
`A. Taniguchi '400
`
`35.
`
`I have been asked my opinion as to whether the measurement plate
`
`20 and associated sensor of Taniguchi '400 is a “transmission image sensor” as set
`
`forth in claims 2, 12, and 19 of the '137 patent. In my opinion, such structure
`
`constitutes a transmission image sensor. According to Taniguchi '400, “The
`
`measurement plate 20, the photoelectric sensors, etc. constitute a spatial-image
`
`detecting system.” ([0035].) It is “a spatial-image detecting system that measures
`
`the position, contrast, etc. of a projection image.” ([0003].) The spatial-image
`
`detecting system is comprised of “a measurement plate 20 with slits 21X, 21Y
`
`
`
`15
`
`Nikon Exhibit 1002 Page 16
`
`
`
`
`formed thereon for use in measuring the imaging characteristics. A focus lens and
`
`a photoelectric sensor are arranged on the bottom side of each of X-axis and Y-axis
`
`slits 21X, 21Y of the measurement plate 20.” ([0035].) Further, this image sensor
`
`is provided on “the measurement stage 14 [that] has a surface set up nearly equal in
`
`height to the surface of the wafer W on the wafer stage WST.” All of the
`
`characteristics of the just described “spatial-image detecting system” are the
`
`defining characteristics of a transmission image sensor: a slit is placed in a plane
`
`corresponding to the top surface of the wafer and a photodetector is positioned
`
`below the slit. The image of a test pattern is projected onto the transmission image
`
`sensor while the sensor is scanned, producing a signal as measured by the
`
`photodetector. This operation of the “spatial-image detecting system” is also
`
`described in Taniguchi '400: “The index-mark IM image, formed on the reference
`
`plate 9, is projected toward the wafer stage. While scanning the image in the X
`
`and Y directions by means of the slits 21X, 21Y of the measurement plate 20, the
`
`signal from the photoelectric sensor in the bottom is fetched by means of the
`
`imaging-characteristic operation system 11.” ([0041].) Thus, the spatial-image
`
`detecting system of Taniguchi '400 is a transmission image sensor.
`
`36.
`
`I have been asked my opinion as to whether one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would find that claims 5, 7, and 15 of the '137 patent would have been
`
`obvious based on Taniguchi '400.
`
`
`
`16
`
`Nikon Exhibit 1002 Page 17
`
`
`
`
`
`37.
`
`Taniguchi discloses a measurement stage 14 with a plurality of
`
`sensors: 18 (an illumination-dosage monitor), 19 (an illuminance-nonuniformity
`
`sensor), 20 and 21X, Y (a measurement plate with slits formed to make a spatial-
`
`image detecting system, i.e., a transmission image sensor). The illumination-
`
`dosage monitor and the spatial image detection system are disclosed as operating
`
`on a patterned beam. (See, e.g., [0035] and [0041].) Although Taniguchi '400
`
`does not expressly disclose that these sensors are provided in a central area on an
`
`upper surface of the sensor table as recited in claims 5 and 15, such is simply a
`
`matter of design choice. Placing the sensors near the center of the sensor table
`
`would involve no extra effort or experimentation as compared to other locations,
`
`and would yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would know
`
`that different locations of the sensors on the sensor table would not yield different
`
`results. I note that the '137 specification contains no description of providing the
`
`plural sensors in a “central” area of the sensor table and gives no hint that such a
`
`location would yield different results as compared to other sensor locations.
`
`Indeed, it would have been obvious to try the center of the sensor table as a
`
`position for the sensors, since there would be no requirement to position them near
`
`the edges of the table.
`
`38.
`
`Additionally, since the sensors must detect light and such detection
`
`could not take place from within the sensor table, the sensors disclosed in
`
`
`
`17
`
`Nikon Exhibit 1002 Page 18
`
`
`
`
`Taniguchi '400 must necessarily be on the surface of the sensor table. As noted in
`
`Section VI, each of the sensors explicitly mentioned by the '137 patent are
`
`routinely placed on the surface of the table supporting them. And, as stated
`
`explicitly in Taniguchi '400, one goal of these sensors is to measure “imaging
`
`characteristics” at a plane that coincides with the plane of the wafer: “At this time,
`
`by arranging the second stage in place of the first stage, the imaging characteristics
`
`can be measured on the plane where the substrate is actually put.” (Id at [00015].)
`
`Sensors such as energy sensors and aerial image sensors are routinely placed at the
`
`level of the top surface of the wafer. (See U.S. Patent 7,486,380 to Hazelton
`
`(Ex. V, “Hazelton '380”), at 6:29-44.) Hence, claims 5 and 15 of the '137 patent
`
`would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on Taniguchi
`
`'400.
`
`39.
`
`Although Taniguchi '400 does not explicitly use the term “in
`
`synchronism,” as in claim 7 of the '137 patent, it is clear from Taniguchi '400 that
`
`the wafer stage WST is moved out of the path of the exposure beam while the
`
`measurement stage 14 is moved into the path of the beam and the stages are
`
`therefore moved in synchronism. (See, e.g., [0011].) For example, Taniguchi '400
`
`uses the phrase “At this time, during measurement” to begin a description of
`
`moving the wafer stage out of the path of the exposure beam and also to begin a
`
`
`
`18
`
`Nikon Exhibit 1002 Page 19
`
`
`
`
`description of moving the measuring instruments of the second stage into the path
`
`of the exposure beam. (Id at [0016].)
`
`40.
`
`To the extent it is determined that Taniguchi '400 does not disclose
`
`such synchronous control, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art that the controller 10 move the stages in synchronism. Taniguchi '400
`
`repeatedly refers to improving the throughput of the system. (See, e.g., [0028],
`
`[0037], [0054] and [0066]-[0068].) One of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`been motivated by the goal of providing improved throughput to control the stages
`
`to move in synchronism in order to minimize the time taken to move the stages to
`
`and from the exposure area. Moving the stages in synchronism is not inherently
`
`more difficult than moving them in sequence, is performed in the same way, and
`
`yields an entirely predictable result. Thus, claim 7 of the '137 patent would have
`
`been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on Taniguchi '400.
`
`B.
`
`41.
`
`Taniguchi '400 In Combination With Baselman
`
`I have also been asked my opinion as to whether one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Taniguchi '400 by including
`
`a shearing interferometry sensor such as the one disclosed in Baselmans.
`
`42.
`
`Taniguchi '400 discloses a measurement stage 14 with a plurality
`
`of sensors: 18 (an illumination-dosage monitor), 19 (an illuminance-nonuniformity
`
`sensor), 20 and 21X, Y (a measurement plate with a slits formed to make a spatial-
`
`
`
`19
`
`Nikon Exhibit 1002 Page 20
`
`
`
`
`image detecting system, i.e., a transmission image sensor). These sensors are only
`
`exemplary, and one of ordinary skill in the art would know that other sensors exist
`
`and could be used on the measurement stage disclosed by Taniguchi '400. Since
`
`the measurement stage 14 is provided separate from wafer stage WST, adding
`
`more sensors to the measurement stage 14 does not impact the size of the wafer
`
`stage WST and doesn’t affect throughput. (See, e.g., Taniguchi '400, ¶ [0066].)
`
`Thus, there is ample opportunity to add more sensors, including sensors of
`
`different types, to the arrangement described by Taniguchi '400.
`
`43.
`
`Taniguchi '400 describes one sensor as a “spatial-image detecting
`
`system” that can be used to detect aberrations of the projection optical system such
`
`as “curvature of field and distortion (including magnification errors)”. Other types
`
`of sensors capable of detecting aberrations in a projection system were also well
`
`known at the time. A shearing interferometer for measuring the aberrations of a
`
`projection optical system is one example well known in the art, such as that
`
`described by Baselmans. It would have been an obvious design choice to include a
`
`shearing interferometer onto the sensor table taught by Taniguchi '400, either
`
`instead of or in addition to the spatial-image detecting system described in that
`
`reference, yielding predictable results. A shearing interferometer mounted on the
`
`sensor table of Taniguchi '400 would produce the same results as it does when used
`
`
`
`20
`
`Nikon Exhibit 1002 Page 21
`
`
`
`
`in Baselmans and it would be desirable to add a shearing interferometer for
`
`determining wavefront aberrations.
`
`44.
`
`The addition of a shearing interferometer, as taught by Baselmans,
`
`to the sensor table described in Taniguchi '400 would be nothing more that
`
`combining prior art elements (the measuring stage of Taniguchi '400 and the
`
`shearing interferometer of Baselmans) according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results. The shearing interferometer of Baselmans is implemented in a
`
`stage at the wafer plane in a manner completely consistent with the spatial-image
`
`detecting system described in Taniguchi '400 (a slit or pinhole at the surface of the
`
`stage, with a detector below). Thus, claims 3 and 13 of the '137 patent would have
`
`been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on Taniguchi '400 in view of
`
`Baselmans.
`
`C. Taniguchi '400 In Combination With Baselmans and Van Der
`Laan '694
`
`45.
`
`I have also been asked my opinion as to whether one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have found it obvious to employ the shearing interferometer
`
`sensor disclosed in Baselmans and the transmission image sensor disclosed in Van
`
`Der Laan '694 with the lithographic apparatus of Taniguchi '400. Claims 4 and 14
`
`require a first sensor configured to sense wavefront aberration of the radiation and
`
`a second sensor configured to sense an aerial image of the radiation. As discussed
`
`above, Baselmans confirms that a shearing interferometer sensor is a conventional
`
`
`21
`
`Nikon Exhibit 1002 Page 22
`
`
`
`
`sensor. A sensor configured to sense an aerial image of radiation was also
`
`conventional, having been in use in lithography tools since 1983 (see discussion
`
`regarding state of the art above). One of the sensors for sensing an aerial image
`
`disclosed in the '137 specification is a transmission image sensor (TIS), which is
`
`disclosed in Van Der Laan '694. See, e.g., FIG. 1 (TIS) and [0049]-[0050]. It
`
`would have bee
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
