Appeal 2007-3195
Application 09/824,936
corresponding to the claimed wafer size requirements in a capacitively-
coupled plasma reactor (Answer 7-13; Sato, col. 4, ll. 34-56; col. 8, ll. 30-
48; and col. 9, ll. 12-24).
Appellant argues the rejected claims together as a group. Thus, we
select claim 1 as the representative claim on which we shall decide this
appeal as to both of the rejections.
Appellant does not dispute that Hanada describes or suggests a plasma
reactor that includes at least two electrodes, an internal process space
between the electrodes, an RF Generator, gas providing and evacuation
devices, a substrate, and a dielectric layer that corresponds to these reactor
features as called for in representative claim 1, except for explicitly
disclosing that the RF generator is capable of generating frequencies above
13.56 MHz, and that the reactor is capable of handling a substrate having “a
largest dimension of at least 0.7m” as required by representative claim 1
(Br. 7-8).1
Hence, the issues before us are: Has Appellant established reversible
error in one or both of the Examiner’s stated obviousness rejections based on
the arguments and/or evidence submitted in the Briefs respecting the claim
requirements for an RF generator capable of generating frequencies above
13.56 MHz and/or a plasma reactor capable of handling a large dimensioned
substrate? We answer these questions in the negative and affirm the
Examiner’s rejections for substantially the reasons stated in the final
rejection and Answer. We add the following for emphasis.
1 Arguments not made in the Briefs are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(vii) (2006).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013