Appeal 2007-1394
Application 10/301,464
that the selection of an appropriate material for the edge ring film element of
Yang or the APA, including either a silicon-based material and/or an
elastomer-based material, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention based on the combined teachings of the
applied references because Babb discloses that silicone rubber is a suitable
material for the vacuum chuck O-ring (Answer, 6; Babb, col. 6, ll. 6-9). We
agree.
In the face of the Examiner’s rejection, Appellants’ contention that the
references are not combinable is not found persuasive. After all, it would
have been expected that one of ordinary skill in the art would be cognizant
of the requirements of a suitable material for use in placing on a CMP
pedestal plate wafer holder for contact with and holding of a silicon wafer
and would have selected a compatible material, such as a known silicone
rubber or another suitable known elastomer material for holding the wafer
under vacuum conditions.
Dependent claims 8 and 19 require that the edge contact ring has a
maximum width of 5mm. The Examiner has basically determined that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to determine the optimum width of the wafer holding material
interposed between the CMP wafer pedestal plate (vacuum chuck plate) and
the wafer as a ring shaped material holder (Answer 8 and 9).
Appellants argue that none of the applied prior art anticipates the
claimed subject matter and that the APA teaches away because a disc of film
material is employed. We do not find these arguments to be persuasive of
reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness position with regard to these
claims. As to the specific question of "teaching away," our reviewing court
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013