Appeal 2007-0127
Application 09/749,916
1 thin beads of an electrically conductive elastomeric
2 material between the electrode and the graphite backing ring,
3 the elastomeric material including an electrically conductive
4 filler which provides an electrical current path between the
5 electrode and the graphite backing ring.
6
7 The Appellants urge that Murai and Degner fail to suggest
8 substantially modifying Murai’s plasma chamber to produce the plasma
9 reaction chamber including a showerhead electrode as recited in claims 8-10
10 in light of the substantially different structure and principle of operation of
11 Murai’s apparatus. (Br., paragraph spanning pp. 28 - 29). By this, the
12 Appellants appear to mean that the ordinary worker would not have
13 modified Murai by changing the introduction of gases through the sidewall
14 to introducing them through a showerhead electrode, as taught by Degner.
15 (Br. at 27). The Appellants do not explain why the “principles of operation”
16 are so different that the ordinary worker would not have tried to obtain the
17 advantages of uniform plasma generation that are offered by showerhead
18 electrodes.
19 We are not persuaded. As noted above, the Appellant has not shown
20 by persuasive evidence or reasoning what principle of operation has been so
21 changed as to render the teachings relating to the electrodes nontransferable.
22 (IIID) Claims 30 and 38
23 The Appellants urge that Murai and Degner fail to suggest modifying
24 Murai’s plasma chamber to produce a plasma reaction chamber including a
25 showerhead electrode, much less a showerhead electrode having a plurality
26 of gas outlets arranged to distribute process gas and a graphite backing ring
27 elastomer bonded to the electrode. (Br., p. 29, ll. 9-18).
33
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013