Appeal 2007-1394
Application 10/301,464
We answer this question in the negative. This is because Appellants
have not even addressed, much less persuasively so, an underlying rationale
for the proposed modification of the film of Yang or the APA film covering
the CMP wafer pedestal plate that is reasonably developed by the Examiner.
This rationale is premised on the teachings of the APA or Yang (the argued
wet removal prior art), not Babb (the asserted dry process for depositing
material).
In particular, a reading of Yang or the APA clearly reveals that one of
ordinary skill in the art was informed as to a wafer contamination problem
with prior art CMP wafer pedestal plate films and an option for reducing the
problem contamination; that is, reducing the area of contact of the film
located on the pedestal plate that is used for holding the wafer away from
contact with the plate itself. For example, Yang discloses a number of
options, including an annular edge arrangement of discrete pedestal film
members (1113b, Fig. 14). O-ring type members for holding a wafer spaced
from a plate, at least temporarily, are well-known as evidenced by Babb for
holding and spinning a wafer (vacuum chuck) during wafer processing and
testing, albeit not explicitly described for a CMP utility. Hence, we have no
doubt that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to use and
modify, as appropriate, such a familiar edge ring shape type holder element
as a known shape available for use as the film element shape of the pedestal
wafer holder (chuck) of the APA or Yang. This is so because such a shape
for a contacting member of a plate shaped holder would have been familiar
to one of ordinary skill in the art with or without the evidence thereof
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013