Appeal 2007-2095
Application 10/378,493
(6) Hayashi teaches heating substrates with an induction heating coil
located above and below the substrate (Answer 6; see Hayashi,
Fig. 1; and col. 3, ll. 42-43); and
(7) Löfgren is applied for the same factual finding as noted in finding
(3) listed above.
We also incorporate the legal principles as discussed above. Applying
these legal principles to the factual findings in the record of this appeal, we
determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness. As shown by factual finding (4) listed above, we determine
that Frijlink discloses every limitation of claim 1 on appeal with the
exception of the graphite used to form the carrier plate, the cover plate, and
the gas-discharge ring, as well as heating from the rear (Answer 6). As
shown by factual findings (5) and (7) listed above, we determine that it was
well known in the art to use graphite as a suitable construction material for
the carrier plate, the cover plate, and the gas-discharge ring in epitaxial
processing chambers (see the Answer 14). We also determine that Sillmon
‘289 specifically suggests the replacement of the Mo gas-discharge ring of
Frijlink by a graphite material (see factual finding (5) listed above). Finally,
we determine that Hayashi teaches heating a substrate from the rear by a
high frequency coil, and this finding has not been disputed by Appellants
(see factual finding (6) listed above and the Brief in its entirety).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s explicit analysis supporting
obviousness, namely that it would have been well within the ordinary skill in
this art to replace the Mo gas-discharge ring disclosed by Frijlink with the
graphite gas-discharge ring as taught by Sillmon ‘289, as well as use
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013