Appeal No. 2003-1501
Application 09/756,929
a source of plasma gas, coupled to said enclosure, for exposing the encapsulated object in
said enclosure to plasma gas;
wherein a reaction of the plasma gas at a component surface of the encapsulated object
causes any contaminates thereon to be removed from the component surface of the encapsulated
object.
47. A plasma cleaner comprising:
an encapsulated electronic component:
a reaction chamber;
a gas source coupled to said reaction chamber;
an electric field source coupled to said reaction chamber; and
a vacuum pump coupled to said reaction chamber, wherein said vacuum pump maintains
vacuum pressure in said reaction chamber and removes by-products produced from reaction on a
surface of the encapsulated electronic component of gas, which is supplied to said reaction
chamber by said gas source, and an electric field, which is supplied to said reaction chamber by
said source of electric field.
53. A manufacturing apparatus for treating and curing electronic packages, the apparatus
comprising:
a plurality of electronic packages;
a process unit in which the electronic packages are disposed for treatment and curing;
a gas source, coupled to said process unit, for introducing gas into said process unit;
an energy field generator supplying an energy field inside said process unit, to cause
within said process unit the gas to produce a plasma which reacts on conductive surfaces of the
electronic packages to remove encasing material and contaminants therefrom; and
a heat source providing heat inside said process unit to cure the electronic packages.
The appealed claims, as represented by the above claims, are drawn to apparatus for
plasma cleaning and can include curing a workpiece, which can be an encapsulated object or an
electronic package, by exposing the workpiece to plasma gas in a reaction chamber, that is also
termed an enclosure or a processing unit.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Ito et al. (Ito) 4,486,461 Dec. 4, 1984
Rigali et al. (Rigali) 5,766,404 Jun. 16, 1998
The examiner has rejected appealed claims 43, 44, 46 through 52, 58 and 59 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Rigali (answer, page 5), and appealed claims 45,
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007