Appeal 2007-0127
Application 09/749,916
1 that showerhead electrodes having a thickness of 0.25 inch or greater can be
2 operated at significantly higher power levels than thinner electrodes.”
3 (Hubacek Declaration, p. 3, ll. 6-11)
4 We have far less confidence than Mr. Hubacek that these three data
5 points are sufficient to extrapolate the safe range and failure range. First,
6 there is no visible difference in Appendix B between the “Cracked” and
7 “OK” tested points. Second, line A is not marked on the graph, although we
8 assume without deciding that it is the diagonal line, as that is the only line
9 that makes sense to “extrapolate.” Moreover, it would seem that a
10 “cracked” point would lie well below line A; but the three “actual” tested
11 points appear to lie well above (one point) or slightly above (two points) the
12 line. Thus, all three points would seem to be in the low probability of
13 cracking zone.
14 We are provided with conclusory statements that these results are
15 “surprising” or “unexpected,” without a substantive explanation of what
16 makes them unexpected to one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we
17 are not persuaded by this contention.
18 (c) Reduced Byproduct Deposition Behind the Electrode
19 Mr. Hubacek testifies that increasing the showerhead electrode
20 thickness while using the same diameter gas passages “surprisingly reduces
21 particle contamination of processed wafers.” (Hubacek Declaration, p. 3, ll.
22 12-14). According to Mr. Hubacek, showerhead electrodes having a
23 thickness of 0.25 inch and larger reduce deposition of polymer particles
24 behind the electrode and this “can” provide a reduction in particle defects.
25 (Hubacek Declaration, p. 3, ll. 12-14).
21
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013