Appeal No. 2006-1871 Παγε 9
Application No. 10/245,442
by the examiner in the answer and above, we do not find those
arguments persuasive.
Representative claim 21 requires the use of a remote plasma
source. The cleaning gas is introduced into that remote plasma
source and a reactive species formed before the reactive cleaning
gases/species are introduced into the gas distribution plate of
the chemical deposition chamber for the cleaning thereof. In
this regard, the examiner additionally relies on Satoh in
rejecting claims 21 and 23 to establish the obviousness of
employing a remote plasma source with the cleaning gas.
The examiner has determined that:
Satoh et al. teaches that providing the cleaning gas
from a remote plasma source (i.e., introducing the
cleaning gas into a remote plasma source connected to
the chamber, striking a plasma in the remote source to
form a reactive species, and importing the reactive
species through a showerhead- Figure 1, paragraphs
[0058] and [0074]-[0076]) rather than forming an in
situ plasma has the advantage of preventing electrode
damage and impurity contamination (Abstract, paragraph
[0005]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to use a remote plasma for
the cleaning gas . . . to achieve these advantages . .
. .
See the paragraph bridging pages 6 and 7 of the answer.
Appellants (brief, page 12) acknowledge that Satoh discloses
a remote plasma that is used for cleaning a deposition chamber
but note that Satoh does not disclose a heating mechanism for the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007