Appeal No. 2006-0291
Application No. 09/820,692
electrode, was well known in the art (id.). From these findings, the examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art at the time of
appellants’ invention to incorporate the well known plasma reactor of Schmitt in the
process of Liu “in order to separately control the upper electrode and lower (bottom)
electrode” (id.).
Appellants argue that Liu does not disclose a “showerhead electrode” but only a
quartz gas distribution plate (Brief, page 6, footnote 1; page 7, footnote 2; Reply Brief,
pages 2-3). Appellants further argue that the use of a MERIE reactor is an essential
component of the Liu process (Reply Brief, pages 3-4). Appellants also argue that
Schmitt is not related to etching dielectric oxides as done by Liu and appellants, and
thus there is no motivation for incorporating the dual frequency showerhead electrode of
Schmitt in the MERIE plasma reactor of Liu (Brief, page 8; Reply Brief, page 6).
Appellants argue that replacement of the quartz gas distribution plate of Liu with the
showerhead electrode of Schmitt goes against the teachings of Liu and changes the
operation of Liu (Brief, pages 9 and 11).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. Although the examiner does
incorrectly categorize the showerhead of Liu as “a showerhead electrode” (Answer,
page 6; see Liu, col. 4, ll. 34-45), this error is harmless. Contrary to appellants’
arguments, the examiner is not modifying the Liu process by replacing the quartz gas
distribution plate 70 with the showerhead electrode 3 of Schmitt. See the Answer,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007