Appeal No. 1998-2582
Application No. 08/669,794
instant claims, where DO is necessarily present at relatively
high levels. Neither does Hirofuji particularly relate to the
rinsing of semiconductor wafers which have an exposed metal
layer including aluminum, the operational area where the
problem addressed by appellant arises.
Thus, we find there would be no motivation to combine the
teachings of Hirofuji with the admitted prior art in a way
which would render the claimed process obvious within the
purview of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In a nutshell, the examiner has not given due regard to
the principle that patentability may reside in the discovery
of the source of a problem even though the remedy may be
obvious once the source of the problem is identified. See In
re Sponnoble, 405 F.2d 578, 585, 160 USPQ 237, 243 (CCPA
1969); and Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.,
261 U.S. 45, 67-68, 1923 CD 623, 639-40 (1923).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007