Appeal No. 2003-1501
Application 09/756,929
pieces, and Ito is directed to improving conventional wafer deposition processes by the addition
of radiators to heat the wafers to facilitate the deposition, citing col. 3, lines 8-53 (brief, pages
18-19).
The examiner contends that “there is no structural limitation that differentiates the
claimed heat source from the heat source used in the apparatus of Rigali modified by” Ito, and
the heater disclosed by the latter “reference is capable of curing substrates, including the claimed
electronic packages” (answer, pages 11-12). The examiner further contends that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have combined the references because Ito discloses that a source of heat “is
suitable for substrate temperature control in a plasma processing apparatus,” and “that through
the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, it is known that the
combination of a heating treatment in a plasma environment increases the process rate . . . and
provides a more uniform treatment of the substrates” (answer, pages 12-13).
Appellant maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Rigali with
Ito, arguing that the examiner’s reliance on “knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art” is not supported by evidence of record (reply brief, pages 11-14).
We find that the written description in the specification with respect to the claim language
at issue here, is set forth at page 16:
[I]n another preferred embodiment, the plasma clean step 76 and cure step 78 are
implemented simultaneously using the same chamber. As shown in Fig. 5b, the plasma
cleaner can be modified to add a source of heat 59 to provide the heat necessary to
cure the molded package directly in the reaction chamber 58. The heat output from the
source 59 may be supplied to reaction chamber 58 in any manner known in the art.
[Lines 11-19; see also page 19, lines 8-11.]
We note again here that according to the specification, an “electronic package” as used in
appealed claim 53 is another name for “encapsulated package” or “encapsulated object” such as a
plastic encapsulated object or package (see above p. 5).
Thus, we interpret appealed claim 53 in light of the specification to include within its
scope, an apparatus which comprises at least a process unit of any design in which a plurality of
plastic encapsulated electronic packages or objects are disposed for treatment by plasma gas and
curing, that has therein a heat source of any design which provides sufficient heat to cure the
plurality of plastic encapsulated electronic packages or objects.
- 15 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007