Appeal 2007-2185
Application 10/614,992
Appellants have not separately argued the claims. We choose claim 3 as
the representative claim on which to render our decision. The remaining
claims 4-6, 8-14, and 17-25 stand or fall with our decision regarding claim 3.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) OVER CHENG
Appellants argue that Cheng’s support means 70 cannot be construed
as corresponding to an edge ring (Br. 13). Specifically, Appellants argue
that because support means 70 is not located near the edge of the substrate
and does not provide any structural interaction or function with the edge of
the substrate, it cannot be called an edge ring (Br. 13). Appellants further
argue that support means 70 provides support for the shield ring 50 and does
not prevent edge deposition near the edge of a substrate (Br. 13).
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and are unpersuaded
for the reasons given below.
Cheng discloses that the shield ring 50 rests on the support means 70
when the shield ring 50 is not engaged with the susceptor 40 (Cheng, col. 3,
ll. 32-37; Figure 2). When the shield ring 50 is engaged with the susceptor
40, the shield ring 50 lifts off the support means 70 and is elevated (Cheng,
col. 4, ll. 23-27; Figure 5). Cheng further discloses that when the shield ring
50 is lifted off the support means 70, a passage forms between the edges 58
and 78 of the shield ring and support means, respectively (Cheng, col. 8, ll.
30-35). The passage between edges 58 and 78 forms a curtain of inert gas so
as to confine the process gas to the area above the wafer and prevent
undesirable deposition of the process gas (i.e., deposition along the edge and
backside of the wafer) (Cheng, col. 1, ll. 3-8; col. 8, ll. 32-46).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013