Appeal No. 1997-4027
Application No. 08/300,111
rotating means. Thus, we look to the specification for the structure corresponding to
“means for rotating” and equivalents thereof to determine the scope and meaning of claim
10.
We interpret the claimed “means for rotating” as a motor known in the prior art
chemical vapor deposition chamber illustrated in figure 1 and described at page 2, line 19
3
to page 3, line 5, of the specification. According to the specification figure 1 is
representative of a deposition chamber of the prior art. (Specification, page 5, lines 24-
25). The specification discloses the pedestal or susceptor is rotated by a motor 37.
(Specification, page 3, lines 2-5).
Anderson discloses the wafer, which is located on the pedestal, should be rotated
to increase the uniformity of the processing. (Column 1, lines 43-47). Anderson does
not describe the motor used to rotate the pedestal. Appellants have not asserted that the
means for rotating of claim 10 is different from the prior art. Thus, we hold that the
means for rotating described in the prior art is the same in both Anderson and the claimed
invention.
Claim 3 adds the following limitations to the subject matter of claim 1: “wherein
said preheat ring has an extension in its upper surface that overlaps and mates with said
We note the figure 2, which is representative of the Appellants’ invention, includes a3
component 137 which is not described in the specification. We presume component 137 is also
representative of a motor for rotating the susceptor.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007