Appeal 2007-0127
Application 09/749,916
1 Other than these conclusory statements, we are not provided with any
2 evidence to allow us to assess their probative value in a meaningful way.
3 For example, how much reduction was observed? Were the tests run in
4 actual plasma deposition tests? How many tests were run? Why is the
5 increased gas pressure important? What is the margin of error? Why is this
6 reduction surprising? Accordingly, we do not accord these conclusory
7 statements significant evidentiary weight.
8 (d) Reduced Electrical Resistance
9 Mr. Hubacek testifies that the claimed showerhead electrode provides
10 better RF coupling than thinner showerhead electrodes by decreasing the
11 electrical resistance of the electrode from the center to the edge and resulting
12 in a higher etch rate. (Hubacek Declaration, Paragraph 6, spanning pp. 3 -
13 4).
14 However, Mr. Hubacek does not testify that these results were
15 surprising or unexpected. While the thicker electrodes may be better than
16 thinner electrodes, the inquiry is whether the results were unexpected.
17 Accordingly, we are not persuaded by this set of arguments.
18 (e) Increased Plasma Confinement
19 Mr. Hubacek testifies that the reduction in electrode resistance
20 improves plasma confinement in the plasma reactor. (Hubacek Declaration,
21 paragraph 4, spanning pp. 4 - 6.). Mr. Hubacek tested standard resistivity
22 electrodes versus low resistivity electrodes. According to Mr. Hubacek, a
23 larger confinement window results. Further “[s]uch performance benefits
24 are highly desirable in semiconductor processing because by improving
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013