Appeal No. 2000-2136 Page 4
Application No. 08/713,882
All the claims under appeal require a cooldown chamber having a first cooling
member coupled to an inside wall of an enclosure; a second cooling member coupled
to a pedestal for receiving a substrate thereon, wherein the second cooling member
can be selectively positioned adjacent the first cooling member to form a cooling region
therebetween; and a gas source for providing gas to the cooling region. However,
these limitations are not suggested by the applied prior art. In that regard, while
Weinberg does teach a cooldown chamber having a first member (22) coupled to an
inside wall of an enclosure; a cooling member (24) coupled to a pedestal (40) for
receiving a substrate (16) thereon, wherein the cooling member can be selectively
positioned adjacent the first member to form a cooling region (30) therebetween; and a
gas source (64) for providing gas to the cooling region, Weinberg does not teach or
suggest that the first member be a cooling member. To supply this omission in the
teachings of the applied prior art, the examiner made determinations (answer, pages 3
and 7-12) that Weinberg's first member (22) is inherently a cooling member. We do not
agree. We find ourselves in agreement with the appellant's position (brief, pages 4-6;
reply brief, pages 1-2) that Weinberg's first member (22) is not a cooling member. In
our view, Weinberg's member (24) is a cooling member since it includes water jacket
(70) therein through which a coolant may be pumped. Similarly, it is our opinion that
Weinberg's member (22) is not a cooling member since it does not include any
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007