Appeal No. 2002-0974
Application 09/332,745
gettering (IG) regions in the wafer and obtain a highly
crystallinity active device region, we do not understand Asayama
et al. to disclose a different cooling rate than appellants as
argued at page 7 of the brief. Moreover, appellants' argument
concerning constant versus non-constant cooling is not reflected
in the claims. The claims merely require cooling at least
10°C/second as long as the wafer is above 1000°C. This is shown
by Asayama et al.
Appellants' arguments concerning Inoue et al.'s disclosure
of removing the susceptor from contact with the wafer to improve
the cooling rate ignores the level of skill of the routineer. In
the first instance, Inoue et al. clearly state that the purpose
for removing the susceptor from the wafer is to increase the
cooling rate, the very same reason appellants remove the
susceptor from the wafer in their process. Indeed, we think
rudimentary knowledge of the laws of thermodynamics would suggest
that removing a hot, relatively large mass away from another hot
but relatively smaller mass would increase the rate at which the
smaller mass cooled.
Appellants' argument concerning Inoue et al.'s lack of
disclosure concerning the composition of the epitaxial layer and
the single crystal substrate in their process ignores the
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007