Appeal No. 2006-0216
Application No. 10/325,203
with respect to independent claims 22 and 30 since these claims do not require more than
a single adjustment. That is, these independent claims merely require that the respective
varying and controlling steps thereof be performed “prior to a process” (emphasis added).
While independent claims 38 and 41 recite a method of operating a plasma
chamber during a series of processes by energizing at first and second values, the above
noted argument, though relevant, nevertheless is unpersuasive. This is because the
teachings of the applied references are directed to a variety of processes such as an
etching process and a deposition process (e.g., see Holland at lines 52-59 in col. 6 and
Collins at the penultimate sentence of the abstract). Thus, in each reference, the adjusting
step necessary to achieve a uniform or optimized plasma would be made prior to the
etching process and the deposition process respectively. This would satisfy the here
claimed requirements involving first and second values during a series of processes.
In light of the foregoing, we hereby sustain the examiner’s
§ 102 rejections of claims 22-24, 29-32, 37-39 and 41-43 as being anticipated by either
Holland or Collins.
The § 103 Rejections
Concerning these rejections, the appellants argue that “the Examiner is completely
silent about how the two-step energization in claims 40 and 44 is taught or suggested in
the cited references” (brief, page 5 and page 6).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007