Ex Parte He et al - Page 6

                Appeal 2007-1394                                                                             
                Application 10/301,464                                                                       
                as a pedestal film [shape for use] between the wafer and pedestal … of APA                   
                or Yang … which lessens the contamination due [to] the film …” (Answer                       
                6; Babb, element 22, Fig. 2B).                                                               
                      At the outset, we note that Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s                   
                determinations as to what subject matter is admitted prior art.  We shall                    
                consider the appealed claims separately to the extent separately argued.                     
                However, we start with arguments made with respect to all of the rejected                    
                      Besides asserting that none of the applied references are anticipatory                 
                (describe all of the claimed features), Appellants’ main opposition to the                   
                Examiner’s obviousness position is a contention that is applicable to all of                 
                the rejected claims and which is laid out in a repetitious manner substantially              
                throughout the Brief.  This contention is that “one of ordinary skill in the art             
                would not combine the teachings of a wafer pedestal used in a wet process                    
                for material removal (APA and Yang et al.) with the teachings of a dry                       
                process that is used for material deposition (… Babb …).”  Br. 15, 16, 18,                   
                21, 24, 26, 29, 31, 33, 34, 36, 40, 44, 48, 51, 52, 55, 59, 62, 65, 66, 69, 72,              
                75, 78, and 79.                                                                              
                      Thus, prior to addressing the subsidiary issues raised in the Brief, we                
                have identified the main issue brought before us in this appeal as asking the                
                following question.  Have Appellants identified reversible error in the                      
                Examiner’s obviousness rejections by the assertion that the applied                          
                references including the APA, would not teach or suggest the claimed wafer                   
                pedestal because a wafer pedestal used in a wet process for removing                         
                materials (APA or Yang) can not be combined with teachings of a dry                          
                addition process (Babb)?                                                                     


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013