Appeal 2006-1512
Application 10/131,455
securing a substrate comprising a body, one or more substrate contacting
surfaces projecting from the body, and an edge exclusion lip projecting from
the body, the lip sized and adapted to project over an edge of any substrate
beneath the one or more contacting surfaces, the lip spaced from the
substrate at an innermost edge of the lip by a first distance and spaced from
the substrate at the substrate edge by a second distance smaller than the first
distance. We answer this question in the affirmative.
The Examiner finds that Stevens describes a clamp ring that
comprises all of the above components (Answer 6).
Appellant has not disputed the Examiner's findings. Appellant’s
arguments for this rejection are substantially the same as those presented for
the discussion of claims 6 and 7 in the rejection over Lee discussed above.
Specifically, Appellant contends that Stevens does not teach that the height
of the first stepped surface closest of the substrate edge is selected based on
the material to be deposited (Br. 10). Appellant’s arguments are not
persuasive. This argument is directed to the process limitation described in
the last stanza of the claim. Appellant has not directed us to evidence that
establishes that the clamp ring described by Stevens is patentably distinct
from the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 11-13, and 15-17, Appellant has not argued that
Stevens does not disclose to a clamp ring comprising a roof having upper
and lower surfaces, at least one substrate contacting surface extending
downwardly from the lower roof surface, and a lip forming an inner
terminus of the roof. Appellant also has not argued that the lip of Stevens is
sized and adapted to extend inwardly over the edge of the substrate while
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013