Appeal 2006-2133
Application 10/679,144
75, Appellants’ arguments in response initially assert that, contrary to the
claimed invention, Gilbert does not disclose a semiconductor wafer
preheating operation in which the semiconductor wafer is placed “on” the
heater. According to Appellants (Br. 28-29), Gilbert fails to disclose this
feature since the preheating operation disclosed by Gilbert requires that the
wafer 22 be suspended by lift pins 62 over susceptor 24. We agree with the
Examiner (Answer 16), however, that Gilbert can be reasonably interpreted
as disclosing the placing of the wafer “on” the heater since there is nothing
in the claim language which requires direct contact between the heater and
the wafer or, conversely, precludes the use of an intermediary structure such
as Gilbert’s lift pins 62.
We also find to be unpersuasive Appellants’ contention (Br. 29) that,
although Gilbert discloses the use of an oxidizing co-reactant gas and a
purge gas during PZT deposition, there is no disclosure of such gases being
used during a preheating step as claimed. We agree with the Examiner
(Answer 16) that, Appellants’ arguments to the contrary notwithstanding,
Gilbert discloses at column 3, lines 43-56 the use of inert and oxidizing
We further agree with the Examiner (Answer 16) that Gilbert
discloses the use of Ar, N2, He, and O2 gases as set forth in appealed claims
80-82 and 87-89, as well as the PbZrO3 limitation of claim 93. We also find
no error in the Examiner’s finding (Answer 16-17) that Gilbert has a
disclosure which corresponds to the “2% excess Pb” and “solid solution”
features, respectively, of dependent claims 84, 85, 90, and 91.
We also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
dependent claim 93 based on Basceri. Appellants’ argument in response to
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013