Appeal No. 2003-0626
Application No. 09/410,896
coolant’ as suggested by the Examiner.” Appeal brief, page 6.
Appellants further point out that cooling of the electrostatic
chuck 105 is actually achieved using a plurality of grooves 236
in the cooling plate 234. Id.
Like the examiner, we are unpersuaded by appellants’
arguments which are directed towards the intended use of the
claimed apparatus. See examiner’s answer, page 7. As properly
pointed out by the examiner, anticipation only requires that
Flanigan’s grooves be capable of enhancing cooling or any other
type of heat transfer. See examiner’s answer, page 7. Since
Flanigan’s grooves are designed to allow a “heat transfer” gas to
be pumped under the wafer, we are in agreement with the examiner
that Flanigan anticipates the claim limitation of allowing a
cooling fluid to flow therethrough to cool a high temperature
wafer positioned on the chuck. See id.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 16, 18 and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) is affirmed.
Rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 16 and 18-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Moslehi
The examiner found that Moslehi discloses the invention as
claimed with exception that Moslehi “does not specify that the
dimensions of grooves 88 and 90 as having any particular value or
range of values nor does it show more than two circular
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007