Ex parte HILL - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1998-2582                                                        
          Application No. 08/669,794                                                  


          injection followed by degasification to reduce the                          
          concentration of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the water.                        
               Claim 12, the sole independent claim, is representative:               
                    12.  A method of processing semiconductor wafers                  
               having an exposed metal layer including aluminum formed                
               thereon, comprising the steps of:                                      
                    deionizing water,                                                 
                         prior to use of the deionized water for                      
                    processing of the semiconductor wafers, injecting                 
                    air into the deionized water, thereby to remove                   
                    carbon dioxide from the deionized water;                          
                         passing the water with the injected air through              
                    a degasifier unit, thereby reducing a concentration               
                    of oxygen gas that was dissolved in the water due to              
                    the step of injecting air; and                                    
                         rinsing the semiconductor wafers having the                  
                    exposed metal layer with the degasified water,                    
                    thereby reducing any etching or pitting of the                    
                    exposed metal layer by oxygen gas in the water.                   
               All of the claims on appeal stand rejected for                         
          obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the admitted                   
          prior art disclosed in appellant’s specification (pages 1-4)                
          taken in combination with the following prior art reference:                
          Hirofuji                  5,422,013                  Jun. 6,                
          1995                                                                        
               Based upon the record before us, we agree with appellant               

                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007