Appeal 2007-1228
Application 10/150,458
1 [3] a cold plate [Fig. 5, element 134] disposed above the top
2 RF coil [Fig. 5, element 102] , the cold plate being larger in size
3 than the substrates to be processed in the chamber; and
4 [4] an RF insulator [Fig. 5, element 105] disposed between
5 the top RF coil [Fig. 5, element 102] and the cold plate [Fig. 5,
6 element 134] , the RF insulator [Fig. 5, element 105] having a
7 heater [Fig. 5, element 131 shown as coils] disposed therein.
8
9 Claim 6 reads:
10 The apparatus of claim 1 further comprising an RF insulator
11 [Fig. 5, element 130] disposed between the top RF coil [Fig. 5,
12 element 102] and the cold plate [Fig. 5, element 134] and having a
13 heater [Fig. 5, element 131 shown as coils] integrated therein.
14
15 Claim 9 reads:
16 The apparatus of claim 6 further comprising a conducting
17 plate [Fig. 5, element 132] disposed between the RF insulator
18 [Fig. 5, element 130] and the cold plate [Fig. 5, element 134], the
19 conducting plate [Fig. 5, element 132] including graphite.
20
21 The Examiner rejected claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
22 unpatentable over various combinations of prior art. Examiner’s Answer
23 entered September 7, 2006, page 3-14.
24 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
25 appeal is (the reader should know that et al is not used in this opinion):
26 Collins (Collins 1) EP 0 838 843 A2 Apr. 29, 1998
27 Imahashi US 5,695,564 Dec. 9, 1997
28 Tomoyasu US 5,900,103 May 4, 1999
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013