Appeal No. 2006-0378 8
Application No. 10/052,703
Sato’s supporting and heating structure ... to process a wafer at
optimal temperatures.” The motivation for doing so, according
to the Examiner, would be to provide an alternative and
equivalent means for wafer supporting and heating.” (Final
Rejection, p. 10).
Even if there is motivation to make the modification as
advanced by the Examiner, we agree with Appellants that the
resulting apparatus would not meet the requirements of the claims
(Brief, p. 14). As made clear by Appellants, the lower portion
of sidewall 11 of Sato is part of the process chamber and,
therefore, analogous to bottom 205 of chamber 200 shown in
Appellants’ Figure 1. Claim 9, the claim from which claims 10,
11, 13, and 16-18 depend, requires the presence of “a separating
device between a bottom of the process chamber and a bottom of
the heater stage.” This requires that the separating device be a
separate structure from the processing chamber. Something cannot
be between itself and another object. There is no separating
device over and above the process chamber sidewall in Sato.
We, therefore, agree with Appellants that the Examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obvious with respect to
the subject matter of claims 10, 11, 13, and 16-18.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007