Appeal 2007-1228
Application 10/150,458
1 where the wafer is processed. If these references are to be combined at all, it
2 would appear that the elements within the Collins 1 chamber would have
3 been modified and not the RF insulator 1112 found in the ceiling of the
4 Collins 1 chamber.
5 A lawfully sufficient basis for combining the teachings of references
6 has not been articulated. On this record, we have been unable to find a
7 sufficient reason why one skilled in the art would have put a heating element
8 within the RF insulator layer of Collins 1. The prior art relied upon to date
9 does not show putting a heating element into an RF insulator layer of a
10 temperature control system disposed above the ceiling of the chamber.
11 Collins 1 teaches that the RF insulator layer, in combination with the other
12 elements of the temperature control system located above the ceiling, has a
13 specific purpose, i.e., to maintain the ceiling at a selected temperature for
14 preventing polymer deposition. (Collins 1, col. 37:20-38). It is not apparent
15 to us why the use of heaters within insulating layer for wafer heating devices
16 would have prompted one skilled in the art to redesign the RF insulator layer
17 of Collins 1 to also include heaters.
18 While the Examiner has made several rejections, resolution of the
19 arguments presented by Applied Materials turns on whether the combined
20 teachings of Collins 1, Imahashi, Tomoyasu, or Niori would have led one of
21 ordinary skill in the art to arrive at an apparatus of the elected species.
22 As noted earlier, our decision on appeal is limited to a consideration
23 of the elected species. We take no position as to the patentability of the
24 other species encompassed by the generic claim. Ex parte Ohsaka,
25 2 USPQ2d 1460 (BPAI 1987).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013