Ex Parte HUFF et al - Page 3



              Appeal No.  2001-2510                                                                     Page 3                 
              Application No. 09/001,350                                                                                       
                      There is no dispute that Taki discloses the claimed system comprising "an etch                           
              chamber having a wafer pedestal with a top surface to support a wafer and a magnet                               
              coupled to said etch chamber and configured to provide a continuous magnetic field                               
              directed at and in a direction normal to said top surface of said wafer pedestal" (claim 7,                      
              lines 3-7).  Appellants' principal, if not sole, argument is that Taki does not disclose an                      
              apparatus for sputter etching but, rather, an apparatus for plasma etching.                                      
                      The dispositive issue on appeal focuses upon a single paragraph in the Taki                              
              reference, namely, the paragraph at column 16, lines 12-18, which reads as follows:                              
                      In the above-mentioned embodiments, use of etching apparatuses has                                       
                      been explained.  However, the present invention is applicable to a plasma                                
                      CVD apparatus or a plasma sputtering apparatus to obtain the same                                        
                      effect.  For instance, when SiH4 of silane type is introduced as a CVD gas,                              
                      the gas is decomposed by electric discharge so that a deposited layer of                                 
                      silicon is formed on the workpiece.                                                                      
                      According to appellants, the referenced disclosure of Taki contrasts the plasma                          
              etching apparatus previously explained to a plasma CVD apparatus or a plasma                                     
              sputtering apparatus which deposits, not etches, a substrate.  The examiner, on the                              
              other hand, takes the position that since all the examples of Taki are directed to an                            
              etching apparatus, the plasma sputtering apparatus cited would have been understood                              
              by one of ordinary skill in the art to be a plasma sputtering etching apparatus.  The                            
              examiner explains that appellants have not disputed the fact that "[i]t is notoriously                           
              known that a sputtering apparatus operates in one of only two possible manners: as a                             
              sputter deposition apparatus or as a sputter etching apparatus"  (page 5 of Answer,                              
              penultimate paragraph).  Therefore, the examiner reasons that one of ordinary skill in                           
              the art would have understood that the sputtering apparatus described by Taki could be                           






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007