Appeal No. 1999-1674
Application No. 08/923,949
center of a wafer carrier at an oblique angle is known. See the
final Office action dated June 9, 1998, page 2, together with the
Answer, page 3.
Based on the above assertions, the examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to substitute the nozzle arrangement
taught by Hayami and Ando for the nozzle arrangement described in
Seiichiro’s wafer cleaning apparatus.
From our perspective, the examiner’s conclusion is flawed.
As pointed out by the appellants (Reply Brief, pages 3 and 4),
Hayami does not teach the claimed plurality of second jet nozzles
on the sides of a wafer cleaning tank with their openings facing
the center of a wafer carrier at an oblique angle.
Even if we were to agree with the examiner that Hayami
teaches the claimed particularly placed plurality of second jet
nozzles, the examiner has not pointed to any suggestion or
motivation in Seiichiro and/or Hayami to use such particularly
placed plurality of second jet nozzles in the wafer cleaning
apparatus described in Seiichiro. The examiner simply has not
demonstrated that modifying the nozzle arrangement of Seiichiro
as proposed by the examiner would allow the elimination of zones
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007