Appeal No. 2003-1269
Application 09/041,913
claim 23, Lee’s teaching that the temperature is monitored
(col. 6, lines 45-58) would have fairly suggested, to one of
ordinary skill in the art, monitoring the temperature of all
portions of the wafer surface. The appellants’ claim 23 is open
to the selected portions of the substrate being all portions.
We therefore conclude that the processes claimed in the
appellants’ claims 1, 6, 8, 19 and 23 would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art over the combined teachings of
Lee and Parker. Hence, we affirm the rejection over Lee in view
of Parker of these claims and claims 4, 5, 24 and 25 that stand
or fall with claim 1.3
Claim 7
The appellants’ claim 7 requires that the temperature is
cycled.
The examiner argues that Lee’s “varying comprises
periodically and alternately increasing and decreasing the
temperature within the reaction chamber (col. 6, lines 8-11)”.
The portion of Lee relied upon by the examiner, however,
discloses that to obtain uniform deposition, the temperature is
increased or decreased. Lee does not disclose using a
3
3 A discussion of Parker is not necessary to our decision.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007