Appeal No. 2001-0107
Application No. 09/143,505
chamber window, which interferes with the laser beam. (Id. at
ll. 13–19.) The laser beam must be repositioned and re-sized,
and the contaminated windows must be cleaned, causing delays and
lowering the process yield. (Id. at ll. 20–29.)
Appellant teaches that the window contamination and
associated problems are overcome in a system in which a “buffer
window” is interposed between the window and the substrate
overcomes. (Id. at 4, ll. 1–9.) Appellant explains that
“[e]ventually, the evaporated contaminants and the partial
components of the film are deposited in the under surface of the
buffer window 34 instead of the chamber window 33. Thus, it is
impossible for the contaminants to reach the chamber window 33
because the buffer window 34 is in the way of the contaminants.”
(Id. at 9, ll. 5–11, referring to Figure 3.) Because the buffer
window and support are entirely within the chamber, there is no
pressure difference across the buffer window, and it may be made
much thinner than the chamber window. (Id. at ll.28–30.) The
buffer window is easily replaced, and is much cheaper than a new
chamber window because it is much thinner. Moreover, the buffer
window may be patterned with a cutoff layer, permitting annealed
patterns to be formed on the substrate upon exposure to the laser
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007