Appeal No. 1997-3312
Application No. 08/183,787
position at which said object is located in said process
chamber and within the horizontal magnetic field and a
transfer position which is below said process position and at
which said object is located on the same level as said
transfer port which is located at a level lower than said two
permanent magnets which sandwich the space between said
electrodes, so as to move said object into and from said
process chamber."
The examiner's conclusion that the herein claimed subject
matter would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rest on the examiner's contention that it would have
been obvious to modify the apparatus of Kinoshita by employing
drive means for inserting and removing a semiconductor wafer
into and from the process chamber "as taught by the secondary
references" relied upon, i.e., Nakazato, Ukai, or Sekine.
Based on the examiner's statement of this rejection at pages 3
and 4 of the answer, it is apparent that the examiner believes
that the claimed apparatus defined by Claim 9 on appeal finds
substantially identical correspondence in the Figure 18
embodiment of Kinoshita with the primary exception being that
the Kinoshita prior art apparatus does not provide for a drive
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007