Appeal 2007-0496
Application 10/273,147
We find Shi would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in this art a
CVD apparatus that has, with reference to Fig. 1, UV lamp 154 positioned
over optical window 140 which transmits UV light into deposition chamber
104 to wafer 112 on chuck 108, wherein window 140 is heated by UV lamp
154 or “a separate heater (not shown) . . . installed adjacent the window;”
and optical shutter 144 can be mounted directly below window 140 “to
control the exposure of the wafer surface to UV light without turning the
lamp on and off.” Shi, e.g., col. 2, ll. 12-23, and col. 3, l. 22 to col. 4, l. 46.
The Examiner concludes, among other things, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to add Shi’s optical shutter 140
between the VUV and other lamps and the transparent plate of the CVD
apparatus taught by the combined teachings of Anderson and Lee, with the
expectation of controlling the exposure of the wafer as taught by Shi. Office
Action 8-9; Answer 8-10. Appellants contend Shi’s shutter 144 is between
transparent window 140 and wafer 112, and not positioned between UV
lamp 154 and transparent window 140 as required by the position limitation
of the mask member in claim 10. Br. 15. Appellants contend the claimed
position of the mask member prevents light from passing into the transparent
plate, and if the mask member is positioned as taught by Shi, the mask
member will be subject to fogging by the formation of a film thereon,
arguing that the criticality of the claimed arrangement is thus established.
Id. 15-16; see Specification 3:22-26.
We determine the combined teachings of Anderson, Lee and Shi, the
scope of which we determined above, provide convincing evidence
supporting the Examiner’s case that the claimed invention encompassed by
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013