Appeal 2007-1394
Application 10/301,464
It follows that we shall affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 5-8 and 15-19 on this record,
Concerning the Examiner’s second stated obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 9-14 and 20-25, the Examiner additional cites Nulman as
evidence being relied upon. Dependent claims 9-14 further limit
independent claim 5 and dependent claims 20-25 further limit independent
claim 25 with regard to the cross-sectional shape of the edge contact ring.
Various shapes, such as a half oval shape, a “D” shape, a square shape, a
rectangular shape, a half circle shape or a trapezoid shape - which the
contact ring cross-section is recited as being shaped like - are recited in these
claims.
The Examiner has taken the position that it would have been an
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
select the shape of the edge contact ring material cross-section as a matter of
design choice and/or as evidenced by Nulman’s disclosure of differing
shapes for a wafer clamp, including oval, square and round (Answer 7 and
10; Nulman, col. 4, ll. 26-32). Appellants argue that the shapes disclosed for
a wafer clamping ring in Nulman are not for a clamping ring cross-section
but an outer shape/outline of the surface of the clamp. We agree with
Appellants that Nulman appears to be directed to the shape of a distinctly
different device and type than that called for in the so rejected dependent
claims. However, we nonetheless agree with the Examiner’s obviousness
determination. This is, in part, because we are satisfied that the various
cross-section shapes that these rejected claims require for the cross-section
of the edge ring are considered to be matters within the level of skill of an
ordinarily skilled artisan in forming an edge ring of material between a
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013