Appeal 2007-1394
Application 10/301,464
as a pedestal film [shape for use] between the wafer and pedestal … of APA
or Yang … which lessens the contamination due [to] the film …” (Answer
6; Babb, element 22, Fig. 2B).
At the outset, we note that Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s
determinations as to what subject matter is admitted prior art. We shall
consider the appealed claims separately to the extent separately argued.
However, we start with arguments made with respect to all of the rejected
claims.
Besides asserting that none of the applied references are anticipatory
(describe all of the claimed features), Appellants’ main opposition to the
Examiner’s obviousness position is a contention that is applicable to all of
the rejected claims and which is laid out in a repetitious manner substantially
throughout the Brief. This contention is that “one of ordinary skill in the art
would not combine the teachings of a wafer pedestal used in a wet process
for material removal (APA and Yang et al.) with the teachings of a dry
process that is used for material deposition (… Babb …).” Br. 15, 16, 18,
21, 24, 26, 29, 31, 33, 34, 36, 40, 44, 48, 51, 52, 55, 59, 62, 65, 66, 69, 72,
75, 78, and 79.
Thus, prior to addressing the subsidiary issues raised in the Brief, we
have identified the main issue brought before us in this appeal as asking the
following question. Have Appellants identified reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejections by the assertion that the applied
references including the APA, would not teach or suggest the claimed wafer
pedestal because a wafer pedestal used in a wet process for removing
materials (APA or Yang) can not be combined with teachings of a dry
addition process (Babb)?
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013