Appeal 2007-1228
Application 10/150,458
1 Eighth rejection: The Examiner rejected claims 7-8 under 35 U.S.C.
2 § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Collins 1 in view of Niori, further in
3 view of Imahashi or Tomoyasu. Answer 12-13.
4 Ninth rejection: The Examiner rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C.
5 § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Collins 1 in view of Niori, further in
6 view of Maydan. Answer 13-14.
7 The Examiner’s fundamental position is that although Collins 1 does
8 not teach an RF insulating layer having a heater integrated therein, as shown
9 in the Fig. 5 elected species, the prior art as a whole would have led of one
10 of ordinary skill in the art to modify the RF insulating layer of Collins 1 to
11 include such a heater layer.
12 Tomayasu, Imahashi, and Niori which disclose insulating layers
13 having heaters disposed therein are said by the Examiner to make up the
14 difference between the Fig. 5 embodiment and the claims. Answer 4-5
15 and 10.
16 Applied Materials, on the other hand, contends that the claimed
17 subject matter would not have been obvious over the combined teachings of
18 the prior art references because the references that disclose a heater
19 embedded within an insulating layer all relate to heating a wafer and have no
20 relation to RF insulation in ceiling heating mechanisms. Appeal Brief, pages
21 4-9; Reply Brief, page 2.
22 ISSUE
23 Has Applied Materials shown that the Examiner erred in holding that
24 it would have been obvious to modify the heater layer of the chamber reactor
25 of Collins 1 to have an RF insulator with a heater integrated therein as
26 shown in Fig. 5.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013