Appeal 2007-3195
Application 09/824,936
and extending outside the internal process space, the dielectric layer being a
capacitor that is electrically in series with said substrate (15) and the plasma,
said dielectric layer (11 ) having capacitance per unit surface values which
are not uniform along at least one direction of said general surface (15a), for
generating a given distribution profile, for compensating a process in a non-
uniform manner along said general surface (15a) in the reactor.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Collins US 5,210,466 May 11, 1993
Hanada (as translated) JP 08-186094 Jul. 16, 1996
Shang US 6,177,023 B1 Jan. 23, 2001
Sato US 6,199,505 B1 Mar. 13, 2001
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hanada in view of Shang and Collins. Claims 1, 3,
4, and 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Hanada in view of Shang and Sato.
We affirm both rejections.
The Examiner takes the position that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ an RF
generator that is capable of generating frequencies greater than 13.56 MHz
as taught by Collins and to construct the plasma reactor so as to be capable
of handling substrate work pieces of a size that encompass the representative
claim 1 required substrate size (Answer 5-7 and 10-12; Collins, col. 1, ll. 31-
36 and col. 4, ll. 26-47; and Shang, col. 5, ll. 58-63).
In the second stated obviousness rejection, the Examiner employs
Sato in place of Collins for evidencing the prior art use of RF generators
capable of generating frequencies greater than 13.56 MHz and, in addition,
Sato is relied upon for teaching the treatment of wafers of a size
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013