Appeal No. 2004-0784
Application 09/826,078
removing the first substrate containing the deposited layer from the chamber, during the step of
introducing a second substrate and during the step of subsequently depositing a layer of nickel on
the second substrate, “wherein the chamber is heated with the heating element continuously
between the removal of the first substrate and the introduction of the second substrate.”
Appellants submit that “there is nothing in any of the applied prior art references which
discloses or suggests any reason to provide . . . continuous heating of the deposition chamber
while one substrate is being removed and another is being introduced” (brief, page 8). In this
respect, appellants point out that Wolf (page 361) teaches heating the wafer “in a pre-processing
chamber . . . to improve step coverage during deposition,” and that “this ‘may be done in the
sputter chamber during deposition’” (brief, page 8; original emphasis deleted); and that “[p]age
2 of the present specification merely teaches preheating the chamber under vacuum for a period
of time prior to its use . . . (i.e., bakeout of the chamber)” (brief, page 9). Thus, appellants argue
that “[g]vien the disclosure of the references, it would reasonably be presumed that heating of the
chamber ceases when the processing of a wafer is complete and the wafer is to be exited from the
chamber, and that the heating chamber remains off until a new wafer enters whereupon, the
chamber is closed and heating, including preheating, begins anew” (brief, pages 8-9).
The examiner does not dispute appellants’ view of the admitted prior art and Wolf, and,
generally, of Gupta, Chen and Kunishima (answer, pages 5-6). Indeed, as appellants point out
again in the reply brief (page 3), the examiner acknowledges that Gupta “doesn’t describe heating
the chamber throughout the deposition process” and “doesn’t describe a process for the second
wafer,” and does not point to any teachings in Wolf in these respects (answer, page 4). The
examiner merely states, without pointing to any basis in the references, that “it would be obvious
to one skilled in the art” to “heat the chamber during deposition to keep process temperature
constant for the deposition” and, noting the disclosure to preheat in Wolf, that “it would be
obvious to keep the chamber heated in order to heat the second” incoming “wafer and” maintain
“the continuity of the whole process” because it “would save processing time of reheating the
chamber and it would” increase “product yield” (answer, page 4).
In response to appellants’ arguments in the brief, the examiner argues that “it doesn’t
make any sense” to one of ordinary skill in this art “to preheat the substrate and then” introduce
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007