Appeal No. 2003-0626
Application No. 09/410,896
rejection.
Rejection of claims 16, 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
Anticipation requires the disclosure, in a single prior art
reference, of each element of the claim under consideration.
See W. L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554,
220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983). According to the examiner,
Flanigan discloses a structure which reads on appellants’ claims
16, 18 and 20. The examiner found that in Fig. 2, Flanigan shows
a pedestal assembly having a top surface including five
concentrically formed circular grooves and at least five radially
formed linear grooves each of which is in communication with the
circular grooves. Examiner’s answer, page 5. A gas conduit
extends from the bottom of the pedestal assembly through an
opening in the top surface “to allow a heat transfer gas to be
pumped under the wafer during processing.” Flanigan, column 4,
lines 66 - column 5, line 10.
According to appellants, the grooves shown in the top
surface 103 of Flanigan’s electrostatic chuck 105 are “not used
for cooling at all, instead, the grooves are used for achieving
heat transfer on the wafer backside thus achieving a more uniform
wafer temperature. . . . The surface grooves provided by
Flanigan et al are therefore not used to ‘enable cooling using a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007