Appeal 2007-1394
Application 10/301,464
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
lessening the area of the film contact with the plate and the wafer would
reduce the amount of contaminant material from the film left on a wafer
surface after being held on a plate having such a reduced area film covering.
Indeed, as the Examiner points out, Yang expressly teaches that the use of a
pedestal plate film covering minimal areas on a pedestal plate for supporting
a wafer reduces the contamination of the wafer from the film residue
(Answer, 4; Yang, col. 6, l. 66-col. 7, l. 4). Thus, the applied APA and Yang
teach or suggest that the contact area (shape) of a film interposed between
the pedestal plate and wafer should provide support for the wafer held on the
plate film covering yet the film covering should be minimally sized to
reduce contamination of the wafer by the film particles.
However, the Examiner has determined that both the APA and Yang
lack an express description of a pedestal plate film presented in an edge
contact ring shape, as Appellants’ appealed claims require (Answer 5 and 6).
Hence, the Examiner has identified a difference between the subject matter
called for in all of the rejected claims and the disclosure of either the APA or
Yang (see independent claims 5 and 15).
In recognition of this determined difference between the claimed
subject matter and either of the APA or Yang, the Examiner supplies Babb
as part of the evidence relied upon to show that a wafer holding pedestal
plate (chuck) with an annular or plate edge ring shape (O-ring) element
disposed thereon is known to be useful for supporting a wafer during a
portion of a vacuum processing thereof. Based on the evidence of record,
the Examiner contends that “it would have been obvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the O-ring [shape] of Babb
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013