# Humidity ranges and inventive step in semiconductor processing A Korean patent judgment examines metal-containing resists, numerical humidity limits and the technical reasons for combining prior art. Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1882 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Humidity ranges and inventive step in semiconductor processing A Korean patent judgment examines metal-containing resists, numerical humidity limits and the technical reasons for combining prior art. Patents & Utility Models 2026.10.27 published IPLEX 9 min read Claims at issue The Korean Patent Court dismissed the challenge in case 2025Heo10509 on 8 July 2026, leaving in place the IPTAB decision of 27 June 2025 cancelling claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 of patent No. 2640367. The result concerned those claims; it should not be extended to claims 3 and 6 or described as invalidation of every claim. Moisture, heating and the reaction of the resist Claim 1 concerned processing an exposed substrate bearing a metal-containing resist or metal hard mask on a heating plate. The chamber was evacuated and heated, with moisture supplied before or during heating at a specified 43–60% level to promote aggregation. Claims 4 and 7 addressed the corresponding apparatus and program-storage medium. Prior art 1 controlled moisture during post-exposure baking of an organic chemically amplified resist. Prior art 5 described hydrolysis of a metal-containing resist, hydroxide formation and subsequent metal–oxygen condensation. The court examined the actual reaction mechanism rather than treating “aggregation” and “condensation” as decisive verbal distinctions. Continued condensation during heating was relevant; the disclosure was not confined to the solution stage or exposure alone. Figure 7 of the patent: heating treatment apparatus Why the teachings could be combined Moisture control was already connected to pattern line width and uniformity, and the response of metal-containing resists to water was known. The court considered whether a skilled person would apply the established process control when selecting metal-containing materials for resolution and etch resistance. The assessment connected the technical problem, the material properties and the process conditions. It did not rest on an assumption that organic and metal-containing resists were chemically identical. Prior art 1, Figure 4: exhaust and heating configuration An overlapping numerical range was not enough by itself Prior art 1 disclosed 45–55% relative humidity at 23°C, within the claimed 43–60% range. Because the resist materials differed, the overlap alone did not establish identity. It was considered together with the motivation to combine the disclosures and the expected effect of moisture on line width. The patent did not establish a qualitatively different or markedly improved effect attributable to the selected range. On this record the range was treated as ordinary optimisation. This is a case-specific assessment, not a rule that every numerical invention fails unless it presents the same type of experiment. Source chart relating humidity conditions to pattern formation Dependent claims and drafting implications For claims 2 and 5, prior art 6 disclosed humidification at approximately 50% before heating. Using a separate closable container was regarded as an ordinary design choice in this processing context. Claims 1, 4 and 7 lacked inventive step over prior art 1 with 5, and claims 2 and 5 over the combination including 6. When relying on a numerical range, explain how the material, reaction and process interact, why the selected interval matters and what evidence supports its effect. In disputes, examine both the reason to combine and the complete limitations of each claim. IPLEX assists with patent drafting and Korean invalidation and appeal proceedings. The original figure labels and forms are preserved; the text explains the source material. Read the Korean source This article reflects the information available when it was published. Contact us to discuss your circumstances. Discuss this topic ↗ All articles Related service: Patents & utility models ↗ Related service: IP disputes & appeals ↗ ON THIS PAGE Claims at issue Moisture, heating and the reaction of the resist Why the teachings could be combined An overlapping numerical range was not enough by itself Dependent claims and drafting implications TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer GreenBoxes: descriptive wording and proof of acquired distinctiveness ↗ Older Trade mark filing and registration in New Zealand ↗ Related insights Patents & Utility Models 2026.10.29 Withdrawing a patent application during an appeal against refusal Korean Patent Court case 2025Heo10510 explains why withdrawing an application removed the legal interest in challenging the decision upholding its refusal. ↗ Read article Patents & Utility Models 2026.10.28 Saxophone pad repairs: process wording and inventive step A Korean judgment compares a product-by-process claim with a repair manual and video, focusing on the finished pad structure. ↗ Read article Patents & Utility Models 2026.10.26 Changing a claim dependency does not necessarily narrow its scope A Korean patent decision examines lost inherited limitations, amendment restrictions on re-examination and inventive step in anisotropic conductive bonding. ↗ Read article - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/category/patent - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/ko/blog/brunch-case-1882 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/patent#related-insights - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/disputes#related-insights - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1882#article-1882-en-0 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1882#article-1882-en-1 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1882#article-1882-en-2 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1882#article-1882-en-3 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1882#article-1882-en-4 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1883 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/new-zealand-trademark-filing-guide - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1892 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1892 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1886 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1886 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1875 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1875