Appeal 2007-1394
Application 10/301,464
furnished by Babb.1 Moreover, such a familiar shape would have been
readily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as a film member shape
useful for reducing wafer contamination by the known problem of shedding
film because of the relatively smaller contact area of such a ring shape
member relative to a disc shaped wafer to be held thereby (see, e.g., Yang,
col. 6, l. 66-col. 7, l. 4). In addition, as the Examiner maintains, the use of
such an O-ring shape would be advantageous in holding a wafer on the plate
via vacuum because of the sealing effect thereof as taught by Babb.
In any event, the wet removal/ dry addition argument has not been
fairly developed by Appellants to persuasively explain why an edge ring
shape, such as the O-ring shape of the wafer holder of Babb, would not have
been recognized as being an available and useful shape (edge contact ring
shape) for a film member of a CMP wafer holder for placing on top of the
pedestal plate (vacuum chuck) of Yang or the APA given the artisan’s desire
to select a film member shape or film member design that reduces the area
of contact of the film with a wafer being held thereby.
Thus, Appellants have established no reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 5 and 15 and dependent claim
16.
Dependent claims 6 and 17 require that the edge-contact ring is made
of a silicon-based material whereas dependent claims 7 and 18 require an
elastomer-based material for the contact ring. The Examiner has determined
1 For example, we note that plurality of annular-shaped pedestal film
members employed by Yang (Fig. 7, element 513), which shape for the
members one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably recognized
as being a suitable shape for covering the annular periphery of the pedestal
plate and not just the center opening in the plate, as an option.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013