Ex Parte Yudovsky et al - Page 2

                Appeal 2007-2185                                                                                   
                Application 10/614,992                                                                             

                                               INTRODUCTION                                                        
                       Appellants’ disclosed invention relates to (1) an improved susceptor                        
                which inhibits the deposition of process gases on the edge and backside of a                       
                substrate, and which may be easily removed and cleaned and (2) a method                            
                therefore (Specification ¶ [0002], claims 3 and 17).  Appellants’ structure for                    
                preventing the deposition includes a purge ring 15, with alignment slots 6 on                      
                the substrate support 13, and a shadow ring 4 with pins 19 for cooperating                         
                with the alignment slots 6 (Figures 7 and 10; claim 3).                                            
                3. An apparatus comprising:                                                                        
                       a)  a substrate support;                                                                    
                       b) a first edge ring disposed on the substrate support, the first edge                      
                ring having one or more tapered recesses; and                                                      
                       c) a second edge ring having one or more matching tapered pins for                          
                mating engagement with the one or more tapered recesses of the first edge                          
                ring, wherein the first edge ring comprises a purge ring.                                          
                       The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence                       
                of unpatentability:                                                                                
                Cheng EP 553,691 A1 Aug. 4, 1993                                                                   
                Koai US 6,159,299 Dec. 12, 2000                                                                    
                       The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:                                 
                    1. Claims 3-6, 8-14, and 17-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as                        
                       being unpatentable over Cheng.                                                              
                    2. Claims 3-6, 8-14, and 17-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as                        
                       being unpatentable over Koai.                                                               


                                                        2                                                          

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013