Appeal No. 2003-0548 Page 7
Application No. 09/370,599
lower vacuum4 than the other substrate transport chamber.
However, the examiner has essentially made the reasonable factual
determination that the transport chamber (123, figure 7) of Sato,
on which a CVD chamber (126) is disposed, constitutes a structure
that is capable of maintaining a lower relative vacuum than the
other transport chamber (129).
We agree. Also, appellants seemingly acknowledge their
agreement with that finding of the examiner. In this regard,
appellants state “Sato et al. disclose a CVD chamber disposed on
a first wafer transport chamber, where the first transport
chamber has a lower vacuum than the second wafer transport
chamber, which includes a PVD processing chamber.” See page 3
4 A lower vacuum would normally be understood to correspond
to a higher pressure and a higher vacuum would correspond with a
lower pressure. Prior to final disposition of this application,
the examiner should determine whether or not appellants refer to
decreasing pressure in their original specification in a manner
that is inconsistent with the relative vacuums set forth in claim
40. See, e.g., page 6, lines 11-14 of the specification. If so,
the examiner and appellants should take appropriate steps to
purge the application of such inconsistencies and address any
possible new matter that may have crept into the amended claims.
The examiner should also make sure that appellants’ drawing
figures are in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.83 (a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007