Appeal No. 1998-0039
Application No. 08/372,701
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in the applicant’s specification.” In
re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed.
Cir. 1997).
The examiner has found that the “admitted prior art” in
the specification discloses that it was well known to position
a shield adjacent to the periphery of a substrate to avoid
arcing by forming a conductive bridge of metal between the
clamping ring and the wafer (Answer, page 4, citing the
specification, page 3, lines 17-24). However, this “well
known” feature was accomplished with modified processing
equipment, i.e., cutting down the hood area of the clamping
ring so a bridge would more easily form (specification, page
3, ll. 17-22). We do not agree with the examiner that any3
steps of the claimed subject matter read on this admitted
3It is also noted that appellant teaches that such
modification of the hood area may result in excessive bridge
formation which can result in contamination of the wafer
(specification, page 3, ll. 22-24).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007