Appeal 2007-0496
Application 10/273,147
We first consider the ground of rejection of claim 10 over the
combined teachings of Anderson, Lee and Shi. The plain language of this
claim specifies a CVD apparatus comprising at least, among other things,
with reference to Specification Fig. 3, any vacuum ultraviolet light (VUV)
source 3 outside of the chamber and any manner of transparent plate 2 in any
part, exterior or interior, of the chamber, with any manner of mask member
30 provided between VUV source 3 and plate 2 which controls to any extent
the amount of VUV light passing through plate 2.
We find Anderson would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in
this art a CVD apparatus that has, with reference to Fig. 1, high intensity
lamps 34, emitting visible or infrared (IR) frequencies, mounted around
chamber 12 on unlabeled brackets; the light from the lamps is transmitted
through upper and lower domes 14,16 which are transparent to the type of
electromagnetic radiation, and is generally quartz; and the light heats both
sides of susceptor 20 that, in turn, heats gases leading to the deposit of a film
on a substrate on susceptor 20. Anderson, e.g., col. 1, ll. 8-13; col. 2,
l. 63 to col. 3, l. 7; col. 3, ll. 40-42; col. 3, l. 61, to col. 4, l. 9; and col. 7, ll.
8-34.
We find Lee would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in this art a
CVD apparatus that has, with reference to Fig. 4, tube 420 attached to
deposition chamber 432, wherein the tube which is transparent to the type of
electromagnetic radiation used, IR, UV, or VUV, the material of the tube
thus selected from certain materials since VUV light does not pass easily
through quartz; and chamber 432 is surrounded by heater 436. Lee, e.g., col.
20, l. 41, to col. 21, l. 24, and col. 23, l. 40-61.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013