Appeal No. 1998-2342 Page 10
Application No. 08/505,739
Claim 14 is directed to an apparatus for sputter coating. Appellants do not dispute that
Tepman describes an apparatus including a substrate holder, cathode assembly, sensor and motor as
required by the claim. Instead Appellants argue that Tepman does not describe a processor
programmed to determine spacing as a function that will change the spacing so as to produce a film of
given film thickness uniformity across the surface. As discussed above, claim 14 requires
the program be capable of producing films with a degree of thickness uniformity on the order of +/- 5
percent. As the claim is not limited to a semiconductor wafer manufacturing apparatus, levels above
+/- 5 percent may be encompassed. The program of Tepman determines target-to-substrate spacing
as a function of target consumption and is capable to producing film of a given film thickness uniformity
as required by claim 14 (col. 5, lines 42-45). The controller of Tepman is structurally the same. The
apparatus of Sasaki is similar in structure. Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner has established a
prima facie case of anticipation over Tepman and a prima facie case of obviousness over Tepman or
Sasaki in view of Tanaka and Hurwitt with respect to the subject matter of claim 14.
Claim 20
Claim 20, a method claim, includes steps of measuring the film thickness uniformity across the
surfaces of the substrates and based on those measurements, empirically deriving target-to-substrate
spacing as a function of target erosion. We agree with Appellants that Tepman does not describe
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007