Appeal 2007-0127
Application 09/749,916
1 ANALYSIS
2 (I) The Rejection of Claims 1, 4-10, 30, 38, 39, and 41 under 35 U. S.
3 C. §103(a) over Degner in view of Murai.
4 (IA) Arguments regarding Claim 1.
5 Claim 1 recites a silicon electrode for use in a plasma chamber having
6 a confinement ring, comprising: a showerhead electrode having a plurality of
7 gas outlets arranged to distribute process gas in the plasma reaction chamber
8 during use of the showerhead electrode, an electrode thickness of about 0.25
9 inch to 0.5 inch and an electrical resistivity of about 0.005 to 0.1 ohm-cm, an
10 RF driven or electrically grounded electrode surface on one side thereof
11 exposed to plasma in the plasma reaction chamber during use.
12 The Examiner found that Degner describes a parallel plate
13 showerhead electrode for use in a parallel plate plasma reaction chamber
14 used in substrate processing. The electrode has a thickness of from about
15 0.1 to 2 cm, which is about 0.04 to about 0.79 inches. The electrode has an
16 RF driven surface on one side which is exposed to plasma. Finally, the
17 electrode has a graphite backing confinement ring bonded to the electrode.
18 The Examiner found that Degner teaches all of the limitations of claim 1
19 except for the specified Claim 1 resistivity. (Answer, p. 4, ll. 6-14).
20 The Examiner found that Murai describes a low-resistivity electrode
21 for use in a parallel plate plasma reaction chamber used in substrate
22 processing. The Murai electrode has an electrical resistivity of less than
23 0.05 ohm-cm. (Answer, p. 4, ll. 16-20).
24 The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious in light of
25 Murai to produce an electrode in accord with Degner’s teaching with an
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013