Appeal No. 2005-1219
Application No. 09/774,192
The references of record relied upon by the examiner as evidence of obviousness are:
Guo et al. (Guo) 5,944,899 Aug. 31, 1999
Yoshida 5,735,993 Apr. 7, 1998
Claims 28, 33-39 and 42 stand rejected under 35 USC § 103 as unpatentable over Guo in
view of Yoshida. For the details of this rejection reference is made to the examiner’s Answer. For
appellants’ response to the examiner’s rejection reference is made to the Brief and Reply Brief for
the full details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejection on appeal in light of the arguments of the
appellants and the examiner. As a result of this review, we have determined that the applied prior
art establishes the prima facie obviousness of all the claims on appeal. Appellants have not
furnished any further evidence rebutting the prima facie case. Therefore we affirm the rejection of
all the claims on appeal. Our reasons follow.
The following are findings of fact as to the scope and content of the prior art and the
difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art. Guo discloses an apparatus for
processing a semiconductor wafer. Specifically, the device is for etching a wafer using a captive
plasma. Guo uses a vacuum chamber 11 to receive a semiconductor wafer (not shown) on a
conductive pedestal 22. Yoshida also discloses an apparatus to etch a semiconductor wafer.
Yoshida, in the embodiment of Figure 7, discloses a chamber lid or wall with a Faraday shield or
metallic plate 1a and a heater lb embedded therein. This embodiment of Yoshida also has an rf coil
1. Thus, Yoshida differs from the claimed subject matter in that, in Yoshida the heater and Faraday
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007