Appeal No. 94-3000
Application 07/914,654
Appellants also appear to argue that the IPA (isopropyl
alcohol) vapor does not have the claimed properties, including
miscibility. Appellants, however, acknowledge that the
claimed 2-propanol vapor has such properties. See the
dependent claims. It then follows that the isopropyl alcohol
vapor (which is otherwise known as 2-propanol vapor) of the
Kremer and the Kurokawa references, has the claimed
properties.
Further, appellants appear to argue that the preferred
embodiments of the Kremer and Kurokawa references are directed
to employing solvents having different properties than those
claimed for the purposes of cleaning and drying silicon
wafers. However, we cannot limit our focus to the preferred
embodiments of the prior art references only. We need to
consider all the prior art references in their entirety. In
re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966)("we
concluded... the claimed invention obvious to those of
ordinary skill in the art despite the fact that the art
teachings relied upon in all three cases were phrased in terms
of a non-preferred embodiment..."). Upon taking into
consideration the non-preferred embodiments of the Kremer and
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007