Appeal 2007-2185
Application 10/614,992
Appellants disclose that a shadow or purge ring (i.e., edge ring) is
used to control deposition on the edge of the substrate during processing
(Specification ¶¶ [0006], [0007]). Appellants further disclose that the goal
of their disclosed invention is to prevent deposition of the process gases on
the backside and edge of a substrate (Specification ¶ [0002]).
Therefore, like Appellants’ disclosed invention, Cheng’s support
means 70 cooperates with the shield ring 50 to provide a curtain of purge gas
and prevent undesirable deposition on the wafer, especially the backside of
the wafer (Cheng, col. 8, ll. 40-46; col. 1, ll. 3-8). Accordingly, we find that,
since Cheng’s support means 70 functions as an edge ring (i.e., prevents
undesirable deposition of the process gas), the support means 70 may be
considered an edge ring.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that support means 70
cannot be called an edge ring because it is not located near the edge of the
substrate and does not provide any structural interaction or function with the
edge of the substrate (Br. 13). Notably, Appellants’ claims do not require
that the edge ring be located near the edge of a substrate or provide
structural interaction with the edge of the substrate. In other words,
Appellants argue features that are not in the claims. We will not read such
limitations into the claims. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d
1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (stating it is incorrect for the Board to read
unwritten limitations into claims).
Because Cheng discloses Appellants’ argued distinction, we affirm
the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of claims 3-6, 8-14, and 17-25 over
Cheng.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013