Appeal 2007-0496
Application 10/273,147
§ 103(a).
The grounds of rejection of claim 11 and of claims 12 and 21 through
24 dependent thereon, are each based principally on the combined teachings
of Anderson, Lee, and Ito. The plain language of claim 11 is similar to claim
1 and specifies a CVD apparatus comprising at least, among other things,
with reference to Specification Figs. 1 and 2, ring heater 20 provided
directly on transparent plate 2 for heating the plate so that a central portion
of transparent plate 2 keeps its temperatures low relative to the peripheral
portion of the plate. We determined the scope of Anderson and Lee above.
Ito would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in this art heat diffusion
plate 11 having heater 14 which has heating elements concentrically
arranged, that holds and heats a substrate. Ito, e.g., col. 6, ll. 4-46, col. 7,
ll. 1-14, col. 8, ll. 24-65, col. 10, ll. 31-48, and Figs. 1, 2, and 7-9.
The Examiner contends Ito’s plate 11 is transparent and concludes one
of ordinary skill in the art would have replaced one of Anderson’s “heaters
with Ito’s flush heater” so that the a central portion of the transparent plate
keeps its temperatures low relative to the peripheral portion of the plate as
claimed to control regional heating in Anderson’s processing chamber. The
Examiner contends the transparency of plate 11 is evinced by Ito’s
requirement for transmission of heat through the plate. Office Action 7-8;
Answer 6-8. Appellants contend there is no disclosure in Ito evincing plate
11 is or can be transparent, including no disclosure the transparency of plate
11 is necessary to transiting heat therethrough, and thus no disclosure or
7 See, e.g., directly, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language 512 (4th ed., Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013